example 1: a married woman goes on dates with someone else who compliments her, she doesn't physically cheat, but instead later comes and tells her husband she's not currently happy with the attention his giving her and asks his permission to have sex with another. if her husband is romantically and/or sexually insecure (a.k.a. attachment-theory dependent), then he would most likely experience humiliation and degradation, and might very well make a moral stance against her - believing that what she did was "disgusting and morally wrong" or that "she cheated even by the thought" etc.
objectively speaking, she was just being extremely honest, she didn't break any commitment in her actions, nor did she place any ultimatums. she might have not dealt with the situation the best way possible, she could have tried explaining what sort of attention she needs from him. but regardless the condemnation isn't appropriate: he just turned his own feelings and insecurities into an ethical stance.
example 2: after an angry separation, the recently dumped extrovert tries to talk things with the ex who doesn't want to listen, then goes on and shares all of the resulting feelings and experiences from the breakup with pretty much anyone willing to listen. and as a result, he is talking with all of their shared friends, possibly even friend members of her family he see's as friends, and just laying it all out - all the stages of mourning, from pain to anger to missing her. if she is socially insecure, she would would most likely experience humiliation and degradation, and might very well make a moral stance against him - believing that what he did was "disgusting and morally wrong" or "what kind of person would do such a thing".
objectively speaking, he was just being extroverted, he asked her to provide herself as an alternative outlet, he can't be held to have a commitment to her once she broke of her commitments to him, and he was just practicing his right for free speech with the people who where in his life. he might haven't dealt with it the best way possible, and should have considered taking it into a social environment that doesn't know her, but regardless the condemnation isn't appropriate: he just turned her own feelings and insecurities into an ethical stance.
my conclusion: we use ethics as a psychological defense mechanism to dehumanize people who do things that make us feel bad, and thus our insecurities and areas in which we are easily brought to feel bad about become prime candidates.
this can explain a lot about why people take certain political views so personal: being insecure about one's sexuality and taking a stance against an alternative sexuality, being insecure or guilty about one's socio-economic position and taking a stance against economical unfairness, being insecure about one's faith and taking a stance against other faiths... etc'.