It's often inappropriate to say 'inappropriate'

Various comments on the current dispute about two rude and probably criminal media creatures, of whom I previously knew nothing, reminded me of one of my phobias: the choice by many people of 'inappropriate' as the general term of disapprobation.

First there is an offence against logic. 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' are relational terms. Something can't just be 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate'; it can only be 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate' in certain circumstances, so to say baldly that some action or other is 'inappropriate' is illiterate.

Even were that error corrected, 'inappropriate' would be ill fitted for use in many of the cases where it is employed, because it typically refers to a breach of decorum, or minor indiscretion, as in 'Morning dress is inappropriate attire in the Sauna'. In such cases it has the force of a mild reproof. It is also unspecific, indicating that something doesn't fit in without saying how. Yet people use the term when much stronger words would be appropriate, and the first part of this sentence illustrates a typical correct use of the term, to assess the choice of words to describe something, rather than to describe the thing itself.

I think the term is overused by many people who are afraid to use words such as 'wicked', 'cruel', 'dishonest', because they think morality must be 'subjective' on the ground that it is not 'objective'. In fact objective/subjective is a false antithesis in ethics, a matter I discuss in the ethics chapter of my philosophy notes.