Recently I have been pondering about the Witnesses self proclaimed "moral superiority" to the outside world. How can one person's chosen moral be superior to another person's chosen moral? To quantify the difference betwen morals is to test their percieved benefits, and detriments, in the societies that accept them. The only way to do this is by observation and questioning. So how would one figure out the difference between, say, stealing and homosexuality?
We have ample societal data to work with so that gives us hope that a firmer conclusion can be made. Stealing, if left ungoverned, will destroy a society by robbing the innocent of security rending life, as a means of living, growing and loving, actually at risk. Homosexuality is feared by many heterosexual communinties because it's, for some, uncomfortable to watch and is explicitly condemned by Christianity, Judaism and Islam by penalty of death (minus Modern Judaism and Christianity).
As we can see homosexuality should logically be considered a lesser threat than stealing. However if you read the ancient texts, of those three religions, and observe their religious societies (some of us didn't get the choice on this one) homosexulality is considered much worse than stealing. If they had to choose the priest, rabbi and imam would want their son's being caught stealing rather than being caught with another man. Why does this logical contradiction exist within these religious socities?
I would say that it comes from a bad case of loose ethics and over focus on a specific moral or sin. It appears that these people, Jehovah's Witnesses included, have become obsessed with a moral code and are ignoring the more important ethical framework that morals are based on.
One thing that we must understand as the moral creators: a moral is nothing more than a linguistic "risk vs reward" choice consolidator. That's one thing we, as a species, are constantly searching for: data for our Risk vs Reward Systems to work with. Some choose to use what they have found to help others and that's how it starts, but it sometimes ends with religious empires like the ones I talked about.
As ex Jehovah's Witnesses we actually have far superiour ethics than that of the people we left behind; and luckily that's what counts in the end.
Ethics are what fuel our conscience, not morals. Morals are merely laws adorned with the garb of piety.