Is this ethical behavior?

[_Mad Viking]

Was there a "For Entertainment Purposes Only" disclaimer attached?

Nope. It kind of ruins the satire when you explicitely declare it to be.

[_Jason Bourne]

Just curious.

It depends on whether you honestly believed it or not. It also may depend on the pressure and guidance that your father gives. Age and maturity come into play. Culture as well. And even if Smith's behavior was not ethical does this particular activity disqualify him from ever being called of God? What man or woman is perfect?

But just because the lawyer's code does not make something unethical does not make it unethical. And my guess is lawyers made their own code. How about we let some non lawyers design the code.

I am not trying to pick a fight, and I didn't go looking for this. In the first statement you say that the person is not acting unethical if they honestly believe that they are not. In the second one you do not offer lawyers the same consideration.

I am just picking on Bob. :-)

[_Thama]

Was there a "For Entertainment Purposes Only" disclaimer attached?

Nope. It kind of ruins the satire when you explicitely declare it to be.

No, I mean on the hat.

[_Sethbag]

I voted no, but I'd really have to say "well, it would be ethical if I actually could see the treasure, and there was a reasonable prospect of actually recovering it on behalf of my employer." I don't think there is any evidence that Joseph Smith could actually see the treasure, however, nor that he ever recovered any of it for his employers.

[_Scottie]

I will agree that other people are going to be more understaning of the perpetrators' unethical actions when they understand his/her motives.

Isn't that the definition of "more justified"??

[_Mad Viking]

I will agree that other people are going to be more understaning of the perpetrators' unethical actions when they understand his/her motives.

Isn't that the definition of "more justified"??

It is worth discussion.

It is my impression that when something is "justified", that is to say that the act is just. With regard to our scenario (committing an unethical act, such as theivery to feed your family), it is not just in my opinion to steal from someone to feed your family. It seems to me that justice demands that you earn the means to aquire the food honestly. It is understandable though how someone could make the moral judgement of the lesser of two evils being theivery (vis a vis letting your family starve).

[_Scottie]

I will agree that other people are going to be more understaning of the perpetrators' unethical actions when they understand his/her motives.

Isn't that the definition of "more justified"??

It is worth discussion.

It is my impression that when something is "justified", that is to say that the act is just. With regard to our scenario (committing an unethical act, such as theivery to feed your family), it is not just in my opinion to steal from someone to feed your family. It seems to me that justice demands that you earn the means to aquire the food honestly. It is understandable though how someone could make the moral judgement of the lesser of two evils being theivery (vis a vis letting your family starve).

To break it down even further, I would say that justice is measured in further shades of gray. Justice is taking the severity of the crime and weighing it against the circumstances in which is was committed.

[_Mercury]

Just curious.

It depends on whether you honestly believed it or not. It also may depend on the pressure and guidance that your father gives. Age and maturity come into play. Culture as well. And even if Smith's behavior was not ethical does this particular activity disqualify him from ever being called of God? What man or woman is perfect?

But Jason, if I believe that I have a Tree Fairy location device that never finds Tree Fairies it is NOT ethical to sell a service that never finds tree fairies.

You are a businessman, would you sell something to a customer you know does not work but still believe in?

[_Mad Viking]

I will agree that other people are going to be more understaning of the perpetrators' unethical actions when they understand his/her motives.

Isn't that the definition of "more justified"??

It is worth discussion.

It is my impression that when something is "justified", that is to say that the act is just. With regard to our scenario (committing an unethical act, such as theivery to feed your family), it is not just in my opinion to steal from someone to feed your family. It seems to me that justice demands that you earn the means to aquire the food honestly. It is understandable though how someone could make the moral judgement of the lesser of two evils being theivery (vis a vis letting your family starve).

To break it down even further, I would say that justice is measured in further shades of gray. Justice is taking the severity of the crime and weighing it against the circumstances in which is was committed.

Justice can be defined by the parties responsible for defining it, to include leniency for mitigating circumstances. In other words, check mate. I bow before you defeated hoping that your definition of justice will weigh the circumstances of my crime. For some reason, admitting defeat in an anonymous setting is much easier.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

I voted No because there wasn't a "F*ck NO!" option.

Get real you defenders.