Such a broad and overly-general statement needs to be qualified, of course. Let us begin by defining morality. This isn't a definition such as one will find in a dictionary, but the sort that clears up what the concept we are speaking about is. Morality is a specific, enumerated set of laws governing human interaction that are fixed and unchanging. Morality need not be logical or coherent--it can contradict itself, eat its own tail, confuse and confound even the brightest minds of humanity, but it must still fulfill the above function.
Therefore, the original sentence should be modified 'Specific fixed and codified sets of law governing human interaction are the scourge of mankind'. However, this still ignores an important aspect of morality, the 'normative' aspect. Normative means that it carries the force of 'should', that most fearsome of conditionals, behind it. We ought to do it because it is moral. This specific condition also shows us how laws can be immoral--laws are simply specific fixed and codified sets of laws governing human interaction, while morality is a much more dangerous beast, it carries in its hand the 'should', which it uses to smite its opponents. Who amongst us does not strive for the moral high ground? Who does not wither before the wrath of 'should'?
That very same power is why morality is the scourge of mankind. Self-justification is as necessary to man as food and shelter, without it, he quickly sickens and dies. He who controls 'should' controls his fellow man, he holds the tools of their salvation in his hands, and it is he who forges justifications and demands. He is the priest and they the flock, often quite literally.
Man fights over food and shelter, and so, he fights over justification. The battle between different moralities occupies much of our lives--which one do we follow, which one will give us the justification we need? Even criminals and the most immoral folk struggle to justify what they have done, let alone those of us who consciously struggle to be moral and live as we ought to.
This struggle for justification in and of itself is not a bad thing. As man struggles to justify himself, his actions become more and more moral, more and more civilised and just. Rather, the problem comes in the very nature of morality. Morality is an external code - it is written law, not internal thought. Morality comes from no law of science, no mathematical proof, it is not a point of certainty in any real sense. We cannot apply the verification principle to morality, empirically validate its existence. Morality masquerades as an absolute truth, when in reality it is an artifact of consciousness.
Where else can one find moral thought but in the mind of man or God? Morality is a creation of human thought and is in truth, not a science such as it pretends to be, but an art. It is not an empirically valid truth, but a creation of the mind brought forth into the world. It is an essential expression of the self-consciousness, not an imposition of the external world.
As an artifact of consciousness, morality resides in man's consciousness alone, coming out into the world only through his actions and choices, and nothing else. Man cannot in good conscience look to external forces for validation, only for inspiration. Like all art, there are geniuses of morality who serve to inspire the rest of us, but ultimately, just as they cannot paint a picture for us, they cannot lead our lives. A forgery is nothing but--even if it is a very good forgery.
Let us now redefine another, similar term, to refer to this dynamic art, this becoming, this process. Ethics. Ethics is the dynamic consciousness of what is right action. Morality in the sense defined above is necessarily external - it must be codified, and it deals mostly with how to treat one's fellow man. Ethics, on the other hand, is primarily internal, it is bound up in every man's consciousness. Every man who does not enslave himself to a moral system still possesses this consciousness, this conscience. Whereas morality treats the struggle for 'should' as primary--morality is only morality because there exists the possibility of immorality; ethics is monist. There is right action, but no need for wrong action. To act unethically is nothing more than to fail to act rightly. It is not transgressing some law or another, but merely failure to act upon one's conscience.
This brings us back to the title, that ethics is fundamentally a process, while morality is static. Ethics, like any art, grows and changes as the artist grows and changes. Morality does not grow or change--it is unchanging and certain, its pretense of being scientific preventing it from actually being useful to man.
This is important. Man does not find food once and then consider himself full for the rest of his life. Without thought put into where his next meal will come, hunger will overwhelm him in due time. Yet this is what morality seeks to do. Man is given one explanation, one right way, one 'should' and this is supposed to justify him for all time. He cannot go beyond these rules, because then he is acting immorally. Instead, all he can do is content himself with the single taste morality offers.
Satisfying man's needs is an ongoing process, and justification is a need like any other. The only food rich enough to sate a man's hunger for justification is rightness, and it can only be harvested by ethics.
Therefore, man must be consciously ethical. One cannot surrender one's mind to ethics as one can with morality--it demands a conscious effort on the part of the person to decide, to choose the right choice. This is not easy, but neither is farming or building houses. It is hard effort, but only through this hard effort can man get what he wants--justification, rightness. Surrender to morality is fundamentally a choice in bad faith. It is an illusion, a pretense. It is taking a single taste and being content to starve from laziness.