Hellrider: In that case, why are they responsible for their actions And responsible how? In a an absolute "moral" sense? Obviously not (according to your view), as the "right-doers" have only more intelligently adapted to social norms, social constructs!
You seem to think morality floats like a cloud or wafts like a breeze through our lives. Morality is merely practical behavior. It is nothing more special than a social contract which keeps us off each other's toes and insures we don't end up in jail. It isn't handed to us ad hoc by a ghostly hand from the sky.
Not farting in an elevator isn't a divine bit of knowledge. It is just a practical, common sense approach to getting along and not branding yourself as a lout.
But I don`t give a shit about "social norms", social constructs , and if that is all morality is, if that is the basis for how you deem people to be "accountable" for their acts, then your condemnation is worth nothing.
We all hold each other responsible and accountable because we must. In the long run, your neighbor cannot be allowed to run roughshod over you. You draw the line where your property begins and his ends. If not, you might find your neighbor planting a garden in your rose bed and driving your car and stealing your lawnmower!
Top dog eats first. Why? Top dog bites bottom dog when bottom dog tries to steal the juicy bits first.
Society always has Top dog. In America we try to limit who is allowed to be Top Dog by merit and an elective process of representation. Often, Top Dog is just a lying politician. But, that is rather beside my point right now.
Condemnation without power is mere opinion. Condemnation with power (law and courts and prisons) is accountability.
You may not like it--but, my friend, there is no way around it.