Are illegal, unethical acts always wrong?

[FEO]

In discussions with my fellow genealogists, who have traced their family tree that came to Detroit, from Europe, between World War I and World War II a subject came up that we would appreciate some input. Many were women with children and no husband. The men were killed during the war. The US was going through bad economic times with the onset of the depression. Some turned to illegal, unethical means to feed their children and survive. Detroit had many blind pigs [[illegal drinking bars) that they worked in, besides others things. The input I would like is, are illegal, unethical acts always wrong or understandable due to the position we are in? I recently thought of this while watching what is happening in Japan. Right now the people are orderly but when the adults see their children starving, they may do some things that last month they wouldn’t have…..With the employment market down here in Detroit even now some of our friends / relatives are having some questionable behavior. I don’t know the answers but maybe someone on this board can share their views….Thank You

[Ray1936]

When it comes to survival, ethics pretty much goes out the window. I don't have any problem with someone 'cutting corners' to maintain life.

[jcole]

My husbands grandmother ran a still downstairs and had 'female boarders' upstairs during the depression. My father in law was the lookout for cops. It kept food on the table and in the kids stomachs. I see nothing wrong with taking care of your family in extreme situations.

[Detroitej72]

I'd have to agree with Ray's sentiments.

[Lferg]

Interesting question. In my "opinion" [[and we all know what they say about those, lol) There is a big difference between going to work for a speakeasy - or even a brothel, and robbing a nun at gun point because you're a good kid but "hungry". So, I would have to say depending on the circumstances, it may be moral to work in an illegal profession than to let your kid starve.

Just my two cents.

[LodgeDodger]

My grandmother had 18 kids. She ran a blind pig out of the house in order to make ends meet. Mother was number sixteen out of the 18. The last baby was a set of boy twins. I cannot imagine that many kids.

She managed to save enough money earned from running the blind pig to move the family from Baltimore Street to the LaSalle neighborhood.

[tetsua]

Ethics are completely open to interpretation, especially when you put survival into the equation.

[mwilbert]

Illegal acts may or may not be wrong. In my opinion, unethical acts are wrong by definition. However, I don't see what is especially unethical about running a bar, even if bars are illegal.

[skyl4rk]

Rules are for suckahs

[davewindsor]

In discussions with my fellow genealogists, who have traced their family tree that came to Detroit, from Europe, between World War I and World War II a subject came up that we would appreciate some input. Many were women with children and no husband. The men were killed during the war. The US was going through bad economic times with the onset of the depression. Some turned to illegal, unethical means to feed their children and survive. Detroit had many blind pigs [[illegal drinking bars) that they worked in, besides others things. The input I would like is, are illegal, unethical acts always wrong or understandable due to the position we are in? I recently thought of this while watching what is happening in Japan. Right now the people are orderly but when the adults see their children starving, they may do some things that last month they wouldn’t have…..With the employment market down here in Detroit even now some of our friends / relatives are having some questionable behavior. I don’t know the answers but maybe someone on this board can share their views….Thank You

If it's both illegal and unethical, then it's absolutely wrong imo. But illegal and unethical are two different concepts. A person who runs a speakeasy may do it illegally, but if they are libertarians it may be ok. A person can a speakeasy ethically. But, if they they run an illegal speakeasy and water down their liquor then that's unethical as well as illegal and totally wrong. Just my 2 cents.

[Whitehouse]

These days that term is synonim for politics.....

[Blueidone]

I learned a long time ago that right and wrong are judgments made by individuals, and what is right for someone may be wrong for someone else. There are probably those who think they would never so something they consider "wrong". However, circumstances may later change their perspective of what is right and wrong.

Legal and illegal are judgments made by lawmakers. While it may be illegal to run a blind pig in an attempt to feed, clothe and shelter one's family, it may be the right thing to do if it is one of only a few options open at the time. One has to judge whether doing the illegal act is worth the risk of being caught and suffering the legal consequences.

I understand the need to bend the legal limits in order to sustain one's family when times are difficult. However, I am also afraid that with the circumstances the economy is in now, and will be in for the short term [[maybe long term) future, the limits will be not only bent, but broken more and more.

My favorite quote in this regard is: "You have a right to live your life as best you can, so long as that right doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to live as best they can." Which, is just another way of saying "Do unto others as you would have done to you." If the people of the world all lived by that rule, what a different planet this would be.

[wolverine]

It depends on how badly you impact the victim. You can't really just ask a question like this and expect to see a couple sentence answer. The answer is much too complex and nuances in opinions are far too many.

[NorthEndere]

Yeah, no kidding. You're asking us to practically give a broad thesis on ethics.

I think mwilbert hit the nail on the head. Unethical acts, by their very definition are wrong. Illegal acts are up for debate, particularly if they aren't necessarily based on ethics, or based on the ethics as defined solely by a single group/majority group.

[9mile&seneca]

As a believer in social Darwinism, I think anything one does to survive & prosper, short of interfering with the person or property of others, is A-Okay

[Django]

Not to may have a problem with breaking the law during prohibition during the 20s but what about prohibition today?

[9mile&seneca]

Prohibition of any substance is an insult to not only the freedom, but also the intelligence of the governed.

[JBMcB]

It depends on how badly you impact the victim

I would say that if there is a "victim", it's unethical. Running an illegal bar doesn't really hurt anyone.

[RedeemerKid]

Illegal and unethical are not necessarily tied together. I once heard ethics described/defined as follows:

"Ethics is what exists between morality and legality. Ethics is the difference between what someone should do, and what the law requires of them."

People break the law all the time for good reasons. Exceeding the speed limit, and disobeying other traffic laws on your way to the ER is one simple example. There is a law broken, but nothing unethical taking place in the effort to preserve life. Many other examples of victimless types of survival things are outlined above in this thread.

It falls into a scary place when people are put in situations that requires breach of ethics, and a victim is necessary for survival. Kill or be killed situations are my definition of hell on earth.

It happens a lot in war, and other desperate situations.

[SWMAP]

I am reminded of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
"Dietrich Bonhoeffer February 4, 1906 – April 9, 1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian and martyr. He was also a participant in the German resistance movement against Nazism and a founding member of the Confessing Church. His involvement in plans by members of the Abwehr [[the German Military Intelligence Office) to assassinate Adolf Hitler resulted in his arrest in April 1943 and his subsequent execution by hanging in April 1945, 23 days before the Nazis' surrender. His view of Christianity's role in the secular world has become very influential.'

Bonhoeffer advocated Hitler's assassinationand knew about various 1943 plots against Hitler through Dohnanyi, who was actively involved in the planning. In the face of Nazi atrocities, the full scale of which Bonhoeffer learned through the Abwehr, he concluded that "the ultimate question for a responsible man to ask is not how he is to extricate himself heroically from the affair, but how the coming generation shall continue to live." He did not justify his action but accepted that he was taking guilt upon himself as he wrote "when a man takes guilt upon himself in responsibility, he imputes his guilt to himself and no one else. He answers for it...Before other men he is justified by dire necessity; before himself he is acquitted by his conscience, but before God he hopes only for grace."[[In this connection, it is worthwhile to recall his 1932 sermon, in which he said: “the blood of martyrs might once again be demanded, but this blood, if we really have the courage and loyalty to shed it, will not be innocent, shining like that of the first witnesses for the faith. On our blood lies heavy guilt, the guilt of the unprofitable servant who is cast into outer darkness.”)
Under cover of Abwehr, Bonhoeffer served as a courier for the German resistance movement to reveal its existence and intentions and through his ecumenical contacts abroad, to secure possible peace terms for post-Hitler government with the Allies. His visits to Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland were camouflaged as legitimate intelligence activities for Abwehr. In May 1942, he met Anglican Bishop George Bell of Chichester, a member of the House of Lords and an ally of the Confessing Church, contacted by Bonhoeffer's exiled brother-in-law Leibholz, and through whom feelers were sent to British foreign minister Anthony Eden. However, British government ignored these, as it has all other approaches from German resistance.Dohnanyi and Bonhoeffer were also involved in Abwehr operations to help German Jews escape to Switzerland. It was during this time that Bonhoeffer worked on Ethics and wrote letters to keep up the spirits of his former students. He intended Ethics as his magnum opus, but it remained unfinished when he was arrested.

[Mr. Houdini]

When it comes to survival, ethics pretty much goes out the window. I don't have any problem with someone 'cutting corners' to maintain life.

Agreed. It's survival of the fittest.

My grandma ran a speak easy in Detroit. My dad as a boy was the bottle capper. Capping bottles of beer his mom and brothers made illegally.

[GOAT]

Tetsua has it correct. For those who say you gotta do what you gotta do are somewhat correct but that could also mean that I gotta do what I gotta do so therefore I'm going to rob your ass and kill your dog. I guess people don't like that too much do they? But If i have to survive?

[[Sounds kind of like Detroit doesn't it and yet we bitch about the state of the city enough).

[maxx]

Does illegal always equal unethical? No, since what is considered legal has changed with time, the Jim Crow laws for example. OTOH, when you are running a blind pig, where are you getting your booze?
Are you making it yourself with questionable ingredients or buying from the mob? And why is anyone having eighteen children in the twentieth century?

[bahbay]

It depends....

[Django]

Paging majohnson, paging majohnson.