Don Carlos, you wrote, as a comment on my essay AXIOLOGY:

Jacob, I have two questions for you, the first being: Why isn't Common Sense reducible to the other criteria? It seems to me that C.S. consists of judgments made on the basis of having been raised in a society characterized by the definition of Ethics, Morals, Etiquette, and Law.

Don Carlos, Common Sense is a definition based on logical thinking, not on preventing the infringement of impositions aimed at upholding Order in a community of men and women. An act against C.S. is qualified as stupid. When a second stupid act is committed by the same individual, then not only the act, but the person itself is considered stupid. However, if the observer has an exaggerated self-appreciation, not the act, but the perpetrator, is considered stupid, from the beginning.

A simple example suffices to highlight the point: Suppose a truck driver decides to overlook a red traffic light. An illegal act is committed. If the driver frightens or causes discomfort to a fellow driver, by not caring about what is done, a non-written rule of driving etiquette is disrespected. Belonging to a special group of "Careful Drivers," the ethics of that group suffers accordingly. Should the driver not care about the life of a pedestrian, an immoral act is also clearly committed. None of the acts described can be criticized as being 'stupid.' Now, Don Carlos, suppose the driver chooses to cross the red light when a police officer is directing traffic?

My second question, Jacob, is based in the fact that you carve up the space between ethics and morals in a way I'm unfamiliar with. Care to elaborate?

The two words "ethics" and "morals," one Greek-, the other Latin-derived, having the same denotation, are used interchangeably when referring to moral precepts. Yet it so happens that the precepts of groups are not considered as morally binding, in the strict Judeo-Christian understanding of impositions from the 'Highest Authority.' Such principles, or equivalents, rule in all religions, in the strict or loose sense of this word.

Thus, one speaks of medical ethics, not morals. Guilds have their norms, which are called statutes, regulations or rules , defining the ethical, not moral, conduct of its members. One may speak of the ethical principles of: families and even of a given family, as dictated by the parents; religions, guilds, political parties or ideologies, clubs of all kinds, and so on, where the conduct of the members is clearly defined as rules, regulations or statutes, but certainly not as moral constraints.

The difference I make is essential for the understanding of the criteria to judge a human act. This essay of mine is part of the D-SP, which intends to explain better the ways of the world. The next time you feel like criticizing somebody, first realize that you are actually criticizing an act, and think of the criterion you are using. Racists are those who criticize, not acts, but people.
Amazingly, Moses was punished by God, according to the Torah, because of a racist expression against the Jews, the selfsame people he had consolidated under his guidance: Moses said, "You are an obstinate people..." Little did he imagine that others would change the word "obstinate" for worse ones. Up to that time, Moses had criticized only their acts, characterized by rebellions and bickering.

When Moses failed at the end, he was so angry, that instead of talking the rock unto giving water, he hit it with his staff. Thus, a racist expression was associated with a violent action, even though the target was not the intended one, and the result benefic. It is amazing how intuitive was the writer of that portion of the Torah... Still, he was not sufficiently informed as to understand that Moses' stammering was at the root of his misbehavior: not being able to express himself fluently, he took recourse to anger and violence.
By parallel reasoning, one might posit that racism stems from a defect in the fluid channeling of the racists' emotive reactions toward people different to them, and not only in skin color or religion, but even in political leanings and guild association...

I'm realizing at this very moment, that a new rubric has to be coined to depict people suffering from such inadequacy, which may reflect actually a cerebral defect. I suggest the neologism "Groupist."
As an example, I'm bringing up the case of the recent murderous attack in an American establishment of learning, on people who were hated for being the athletes of the school.