Folk history judges people by the quality of their skin (to the dismay of adolescents in particular). You see it in hollywood and in literature: the hero has clear skin while the villain is surprisingly often described as being disfigured. This could stem from a long practice of disease avoidance before modern medicine, even when no disease is relevant (a birthmark, recovered from smallpox, etc). Years ago I worked i…
Even such attributes as handedness can be ascribed to virtue or sin, as with, well, sinister, literally, "of the left side", but with the evolved sense of "prompted by malice or ill-will". See: https://www.etymonline.com/word/sinister>
(And apparently "sinister" and "sin" are not related, though that possibility had occurred to me whilst writing this.)
The same concept often extended to medicine and medical practice, and it wasn't until the emergence of germ theory of infectious disease that medical knowledge and practice began to emerge from its moralising of pathology to a general understanding of disease and dysfunction as being organic in nature. That shift is still incomplete, and there are places, institutions, individuals, and conditions in which moralisation remains a too-common occurance (obesity, addiction, sexually-transmitted diseases, and mental health most especially). We also see moralisation of pathology in other contexts, most notably in criminal law and politics.