Liberalism regards privacy as a primary right. The idea of protecting privacy is a basis of liberalism. This paper examines the meaning of privacy in the context of philosophy and immorality of the idea of protecting privacy in ethics. Futhermore, it examines the idea of anti-emotionalist moral agent which is a primary cause for immorality of the idea of protecting privacy. Privacy means keeping one's own time and place together with controlling and managing personal informations. The realm of the private has been recognized as a sacred realm in romanticism, classical liberalism and capitalism. In modern liberalism, the right of privacy is specified as a right that should be protected. When right of privacy is adopted in family, one family member violates other's privacy. However, liberalist ethics does not allow state to intervene in family affairs and overlooks violations of privacy among family members. Nobody can protect victims from abuse of privacy in family. So there are critics who argue that the idea of protecting privacy in liberalism is a patriarchal and political ideology. Their slogan is "the personal is political". In this paper, I argue that immorality of the idea of protecting privacy originates from the liberalist idea on a moral agent. Liberalism assumes that a moral agent shouldn't be emotional. This idea of an anti-emotional moral agent, which is a fundamental assumption of liberal ethicists such as Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls, excludes the role of emotion in morals. In my view, this notion of anti-emotional moral agent will not achieve self-perfection through morals because humans are the complex being of both reason and emotion. I believe that good moral theories should include reason as well as emotion. In order to embody respect and care for others, and to overcome immorality of the idea of protecting privacy, a moral agent should have a sensitive emotion. A good moral agent should utilize emotion in his/her moral decision.