One of the reasons that I do not like "descriptivist" dictionaries is that they escalate the degradation of communication. Although the concepts of morality and ethics can be traced back to ancient times, yet the modern concept of Ethics has been developed by secularists in order that appropriate and inappropriate conduct may be discussed outside of a religious context.
In the 1800s and early 1900s, there was a societal revolt against the concept of "morality" by secularists as being a religious concept.
While it is true that these words may be used interchangeably today by those who do not care about the historical struggle by those like Ingersoll against "religionists" yet the fact is that a century ago, these two terms were used by opposing "schools" of thought. (I'm not using the word "school" in the sense of an institution of pedagogical education.)
For the sake of this discussion, when I speak of those who are religious I am NOT including those who deny the supernatural's existence. Thus, those so-called theologians who deny the possibility of a true resurrection or of a virgin conceiving a child by a supernatural act are not under consideration as I view them as secularists.
As to my reasons for not voting, they are not based on the same premises. Voting is not inherently evil. Choosing to deliberately cause an innocent person's death is inherently evil.
Those who argue that inaction is the same as murdering an innocent person to spare others are trying to entrap the mind in a dilemma which does not exist. I am responsible for murder if I deliberately kill the innocent, I am not responsible for the death of those who die because I refuse to murder.
While it is true that in my OP, I included the link to the article in order that theists might be able to step outside of their mental box to intellectually consider this subject from a different perspective, yet I did not mean to imply that an agnostic (or atheist) would derive no benefit from the article.
The article demonstrates the basis upon which "ethical" choices are made. Each student is encouraged to express and defend his or her choices based upon their educated subjective viewpoints.
My choices are based on something regarding which if I accept it as a standard it must be a package deal. It cannot be ala carte or cafeteria-style, it must be all or nothing. This means that sometimes there is a conflict between what I subjectively would prefer and that which I accept as right.
[If you want to understand my way of thinking, you are going to have to endure a few paragraphs which may at first seem off-topic but they illustrate my thought processes.]
This sets me in conflict with most of those religious people who claim to follow the Bible because they often base their decisions on what they would prefer.
As an example: In Ephesians 5:19, the text says "speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord."
Regardless of what forms of music I enjoy, when I offer worship to God the only form of musical accompaniment which I use is my spirit. When it comes to secular music, I listen to jazz, soul music and some "golden oldies" from the pop music of the 60s through 90s.
But (in my worldview) God has stated what His choices are and I abide by His choices. He has also stated (in my worldview) how He wants the life and death of Jesus to be memorialized, I do not engage in those man-made customs in which many religious people engage which are intended by them to celebrate the life and crucifixion of Jesus because the Bible text has expressed what God's choice in this matter is and I abide in His choices. (I realize that you consider the Bible to be man-made, but you asked about my way of thinking.)
Now, if you endured those paragraphs—you may be ready for a discussion of my view of right and wrong.
In my worldview, the only thing that was wrong with the tree from which Eve took the fruit is that God did not choose to grant permission for Eve to eat from it. In fact, God pronounced a prohibition on eating of it.
In my worldview, things are moral only because God chose to approve them and things are immoral because God did not grant permission for them.
I do not believe that good defines God, I believe that God defines good. When I say, that God is love, I am not saying that love is god. The concepts of Aphrodite and Eros are that humanity's definition of love defines god. I deny that. God's eternal will and character are what love is.
This is one of the main conflicts between ethics and morality. Ethics is defined by what humans consider to be right and loving. Morality (in my worldview) is defined by God regardless of what man considers to be appropriate.
Thus, if God had chosen that males would copulate with males and females with females then that would be moral and good. The only reason that I teach that these activities are wrong is because God did not choose them. If He had chosen them then they would be good.
The ethicist would argue that a lifelong commitment of a sexual nature between two heterosexuals is no different in its goodness from a lifelong commitment of a sexual nature between two homosexuals because of the foundation upon which ethics is based.
As a believer in God, I disagree with the ethicist not because I do not understand his thought process but rather because the foundation upon which my worldview is based is not the same as his.
There are some religious people who treat some sins as being different from other sins. I had a disagreement recently with a woman on twitter because she wrote as if a man who had been beaten up after he had told those he thought were his friends that he was a homosexual should not be "protected" (her word)
Here is a link to her tweet to which I replied.
My replies to her: https://twitter.com/jamesshewmaker/status/1187846323216748544
She responded to me: https://twitter.com/NativeChick9/status/1187885363769106432
I replied: https://twitter.com/jamesshewmaker/status/1187917266488385537
(She replied to that last tweet but her reply demonstrates her prejudices.)
I do not hate nor fear those who engage in such activities. I had a relatively close relationship with a man who engages in such activities for about 30 years until he moved away from the vicinity of where I lived in 2016. This relationship brought him into many of my relationships with other people including my relatives and friends whom he otherwise would not have known. A large number of them share my views on this subject but were also quite comfortable in associating with him, having him in their houses, and introducing him to other people whom they knew. In fact, about twenty years into our relationship, my late wife and I discovered that he had assumed that we had changed our views on this subject because of how friendly and welcoming we were with him. Like many people who do not understand my worldview, he had assumed that I could not be opposed to those activites in which he engaged as being sinful and at the same time have a close, friendly relationship with him.
This is also the way that I have friendships with people who engage in other activities which I consider sinful which are not considered by the American legal system to be criminal activities.
BTW, for what it is worth, I was opposed to DOMA. I do not believe that Christians should resort to force, coercion, or violence as a response to something simply because it is sinful.