Ignorance is a defense against a moral wrong, but not against an ethical wrong: god is more forgiving than Man.
So much is so obvious.
However the production of Chinese gadgets by, say, Chinese prisoners. does not fit into the production profile of computer games which are produced by modern high tech companies staffed with highly skilled and talented people in a highly competitively paid industry. The product comes the the customer mainly electronically without large numbers of exploited people in sweat shops.
Even if God is only a construct, it is a neccessary construct to give more latitude to a bad conscience.
After all god is an absolute arbiter of our proposed ignorance.
An absolute arbiter which is constructed. 
And could have been constructed in another manner.
I do not feel that god is “necessary” to consult my conscience.
In fact It seems to me that a conscience based on fear of god, fear of hell, fear of a lack of redemption is worthless.
If a course of action moderated by conscience is not voluntary then it is not conscience at all, but compulsion.
The compulsion derived from the delusion of the concept of god that drives people to change or modify their behaviour is a “sin” worse than any computer game.
A “construct” cannot be an arbiter in any sense.
Hobbs: you may not feel this way, but dogma is laid down to appease the public at large. Jesus’ redemption of sin, pertained only to those with the knowledge of sin. This , is, even if there is no belief in the Deity, a construction of appeasing the inordinate guilt. Back in the early days, there was belief at large, and no such a thing as relative ethics existed. But jesus said on flipping a coin "give unto Cesar what is due to Cesar, and God is what is owed to God. So moral relativism was distinguished with Christianity, to differentiate secular ethics.
I try to understand the salient point(s) of an OP. It’s sometimes difficult because OPs can contain lots of ideas. Rhino defined “sin” in his OP as:
He then tries to understand and define passages from Matthew in the New Testament that equate thinking with doing, but says he doesn’t believe they are synonymous unless the thought leads to an action; iow, lustful thoughts could lead to lustful actions. He’s very careful to qualify his statements.
He goes on to draw a parallel between lustful thoughts possibly leading to adulterous actions and playing violent computer games. Do violent computer games lead to violent actions? That, imm, is the basic question. It’s a question often raised because of the seeming increase in juvenile violence the world is experiencing. It’s another angle to the RCC’s teaching: Avoid the near occasion of ‘sin.’ By that I mean, don’t put yourself in a position where you’re surrounded by violence because you may become violent yourself.
This is my interpretation of the OP. Do thoughts lead to actions? 
I think the thoughts you cultivate can make certain actions more likely.
Do hospitals cause death?
Sometimes. Not sure what the relevance of your question is though.
The rich and powerful lay it down, and fools pick it up.
“Sin” is a choice.
Your idea that “in the good old days” is false. There has always been a range of values that change with time and location.
Ethics has always been relative to time and place.
In the age of mass international communication you have far more choices than you have ever had. And the simple fact that the evidence points to such complexity enables that choice.
Not as much as no hospitals.
Who laid it down and why is irrelevant, from the point of view of the theme, that, it's the divergence of ethics and morality we are concerned with here, as a fact. That there is a divergence, may not even point to a higher, god like intent, as the Christ example brought in.(Although there may be hidden one).
The question that can be asked,however, the fact of such divergence having been established, is what is the nature, of that divergence? If not of intention, then of what?
The implied irrelevance (my words/arguable) of the rich and powerful bringing this about, maybe bribing Jesus, to bring about their aims, is questionable at best, although there is no question that it resembled an early version of "power to the people" type forbearance.
So what is the nature of this promised power? It is the spiritual power, the power of redemption, of transvaluation,which had effected the lives of multitudes for over 1,500 years. The fact that it was a total revamp of a social order, where the major determinant was the collapse of the Roman Empire,and the fear of well fed romans to deal with unavoidable collapse, ;; was a necessary process that pointed to nothing less then a miracle-a total re-evaluation, to avoid the catastrophe of total in-ahillation. The Jews had, interest’s too, of preserving themselves in an era of gross social change, and their fortune depended on the words expressed as only a tribute to them as captives. That such transvaluation was needed is of no doubt.
Nietzche’s transvaluation of this state, was based on the redundancy of this spiritual awakening, because, it became redundant, the Holy Roman Empire had her spiritual hunger satiated, got tired of it, and now needed REAL meat to sink their teeth into. Hence, another re-transvaluation, and it seems transvaluation is dependent upon the state and quality of the hunger. But the concept of sin predated Christ, not as a definite concept, but as a practical guide to survival.
It is impractical to sleep with your next-door neighbor’s wife being aware that your neighbor is a lot larger, stronger, and has a bigger club. It would be a sin to let this appearant fact go by unnoticed.
All of your critiques are derivative to the crucial, legitimate one You point out: the difference(ial) between ethics and morality. I believe the difference is a relational one, between ethics and morality, and best described as how they mutually effect each other. There is no doubt that definitions can become more vague as ethical standards become more morally reprehensible, and loose that as they move away from it. In a sense it’s like posturing, versus signaling. The more the sings become apprehended as mere posturing, they loose their meaningful effective use, as an ethical standard.
Sorry - but as you STILL have not said what you think the difference is then, nothing you say makes sense.
There is no absolute definitional difference between two words that many people use interchangeably. And until you state clearly what YOU think the difference is then you cannot expect me to agree or even disagree with what you are saying.
I see your point. The absolute difference between two words is a function of their use. Usage only approximates meaning. The minimum absolute difference in practical usage can vary from time to time. If two words are said to be synonymous, is, when two users agree to understand each other. There are no absolutely absolute definitional meanings, all meanings, phenomenological, epiphenomenological or m$athematical , except in absolutely reducible propositions such as in tautology..
Morality and ethics are understood by most people as interchangeable, but that does not rule out their use in more specific, limited ways.
Imagine 2 spheres. (Or a cross section, circles)
When they are mutually exclusive,they are perceived to be absolutely mutually exclusive. As they get closer and closer to each other, they become potentially on a collision course. As they may be permeable, the interpermeanle part gets larger, until the two spheres perfectly enclose each others volumes, (or areas, in case of a cross section.).
The logical exclusion/inclusion of meaning is like that. The epiphenomal part, the usage, intersecting,
Determine relative meaning. If two things denote the same thing, then they come from different languages. Different languages are not inherently meaningful, that’s the only example I can think of where signs outside their own schema, can’t be functionally derived as reduced from their usage.
These games, of varying meaning by juxtaposition use,and function, sign and signal, may or may not convey the exact intent of the desired meaning.
The function of the desired meaning is one of intending to mean, and this intention underlies in qualifying the degree of completeness of an idea to be expressed.
Insufficient completeness of an intended is reached, the perception of completeness is expressed by a relational signaling of a receipt of a sign.
Morality and ethics are notions, where two ideas intended to be expressed, are of sufficient congruence, where the relational idea between them is understood, where there is no more overlap necessary. But in fact morality can express "more" the ethics, and this is when a person can be said to be ethically sin less, yet morally reprehensible.
Difference in usage cannot be defined, because usage is based on like what wittgenstein called games, where usage depends on ad hoc rules which people use. These rules are different from the syntax, the logical rules of language, where the objective use is qualification, identification and denotation. In connotation the rules are not logical, but functional.
The idea behind ethics, as. In aristotalian ethics, is that they are formally reductive from platonic ideas.
These ethical formulas have become embedded as morality, and this morality is really the “should” of the kantian categorical imperative. And so wittgenstein point’s to kant’s mistake, where, kant would point to a wittgenstein dis association of meaning.
Sorry hobbes, I introduced these other elements, only to show that it is not easy to define what the difference is. That there is a difference is in per se built into the fact that they are different words meant to express two different things, although there are possibly 2 words in the same language that mean exactly the same meaning. Except I can"t think of two in the English language.
And finally and I pray you don"t hold my long winded ness, as a disadvantage, I ask of you a problem of absolute(ion).
If you had two choices on the road to an ethival-moral dilemma , at one end it would land you into absolute morality and consequent insanity, whereas the other into a relative ethics totally away fro platonism as possible,(or it’s a priori apprehension) -but would lead you to a certainty of effective confusion and a certain a posteriori technical accident based on miscalculation war games , where would you place your bets? This is why a middle of the road position of ethical/moral restraint position would be the safest bet. What if this was a constrained either/or ethical decision, based on a canvas of formless form? Or, formed formless ness?
Let’s say the situation was not warranted by sitting on the edge? Let’s say al the ethics was burned in a great auto dafe, Machedesan, aristotle , Kant, and only Humanism remained. The golden rule. Do you think , that society wouldn’t fall into pure opportunism, counterfeiting, slavery, corruption, inhumanity and chaos? Do you think it not, that it would become very difficult to find soldiers fighting for such twisted causes? Carrying this argument to the extreme would very likely reduce mankind into. A heap of ashes. We are praying against the clock.
So was Kant right after all? We should return to our humble beginnings, or else will be put back there against our wishes? -
I know parts of this are embarrasengly naïve, and will cut some out later, but for now,my rational is, is this naivety is what is setting up bulwarks in a civilisation bereft with primitive concepts. The incorporation, rather the rejection of these concepts in my opinion, can reverse a. A process laden with uncontrollable terror, intrinsic and extrinsic.
Simulated war games don't do justice, and they are a sin.
None of the foregoing even begins to support your last sentence.
So when you say there has been a divergence between morality and ethic, what do you mean. Or am I going to regret asking that question again?
Hope not and will try answering within 24 hours.
Morality is a Code: it is a code of belief in how the right is implicit with the good. Ethics is excersising that right.
The relational quality is one where confusion arises. Iw the difference between a being and doing is not differentiated, the wider implications are that reality of what is the right thing to do need not be connected to the necessity of doing what one should.
The ethical duty as in say, a bystader not being obliged to save the life of a drowning man, is an example . But an ethical duty does not alway encompass a moral obligation.
Virtual games like simulated war games, are not reducible to(standard( languaage games probably because the underlying language does not adequetly describe or predict the paradimn.(Most likely, desired, outcome).(Of the games)
? If not your regret will be acknowledged
.
Thank you, but I do not think this distinction supports your view about ‘divergence’. As you have described two concepts that are functionally distinct, their divergence is simply a factor of their distinct functionality. and does not add to the discussion about a divergence over time.
pace:“Who laid it down and why is irrelevant, from the point of view of the theme, that, it’s the divergence of ethics and morality we are concerned with here, as a fact.”
A more fruitful distinction, and one I have used to some effect before is that morality is a changing code adjusting to the changing values of society but most often impeding and resisting change. Ethics is more about an understanding as to how and why this code emerges, how it changes and what are the consequences of our actions and how they relate to the moral code.
Morals are most often claimed to be objective, unchanging and universal; ethics demonstrates that morals are none of these.