I am not going to claim I understand the concept of metaethics, I don't have the time to read through the link carefully, and even if I did, I know I will miss something. However, it seems to me that at its simplest metaethics asks the question 'what is morality?' and tries to answer this question through examining the contextual evolution of morality and if there is such a thing as absolutes. Let me know if I am in the ballpark? If I am sitting in the car park, let me down gently :)

1.Meta-ethics: I think everything is relative, I believe in the concept of a greater good, and would sacrifice the few to benefit the many. However, I would have no compunction in doing what is best for myself and those I most care about even if it were to the detriment of the greater good. Both positions are moral.

(I realise I am most likely conflating your two categories) An example from my teenage years: Very good friends of my parents owned a small grocery store, they were wonderful people, always incredibly kind to me and would always give me some lollies/chocolates etc when I went into their store. When I was 15 there were a number of break ins in the area, businesses, houses etc. I knew who was responsible as a very good friend of mine was involved in a few of the break ins. He, like some of the others involved I guess, was a good person doing bad things, I won't go into specifics, but the two years leading up to this point were awful for him and he was desperately looking for something to make him feel special. I was already in a difficult position as I wanted to report the group, when they broke into my parent's friends' shop. Not only did they steal a bunch of stuff, they trashed it, causing thousands of dollars of damage. They had to remain closed for a few days to repair the damage and clean it up. While insurance covered the loss and damage, it didn't cover the loss incurred while being closed. At that point I found out they were already barely scraping by, and this went close to ruining them. My friend was not involved in that break in, and at that point he really wanted to get out of the group. If I reported the group, he would be implicated. The moral thing to do was to report them; the moral thing to do was to protect my friend.

2.Basically I do what I feel is right, that being said, I worked out in my early 20s that the two things I valued most in others was honesty and trustworthiness. My moral compass is based around these two traits. When friends and colleagues have something they need to share, but don't want it to go any further, they come to me. They know I won't gossip, I won't tell just 'one' friend. I also tell them if I think they are being unreasonable, so they know I am not simply their rant receptor. This has lost me a few friends over the years, but has also created stronger bonds with others. However, I see nothing wrong with the occasional white lie (relatively frequently, usually lies through omission), and I have betrayed a person's confidence if I saw it more beneficial for them to do so (very infrequently), never for my own benefit.