Moral relativism could enable a person to justify almost any sort of decision or action, so long as it is not declared illegal...
----------
Chinese Restaurant Corp. seems to only hire Chinese
people -- no Whites in sight, despite the fact that U.S. business firms are required to hire and promote
people based on their credentials rather than to discriminate on non-job-related characteristics such as RACE,
gender, religion, NATIONAL ORIGIN, etc.
Chinese Restaurant Corp. acts ILLETHICALly.
----------
Even though some
people feel that the advertising of cigarettes (especially to youth) is unethical, the
people managing tobacco companies respond that they are simply offering a product; "Let the buyer beware" (Caveat emptor) is a traditional saying in free-market capitalism. They argue that customers in a free-market democracy have the right to choose how they spend their money and live their lives. Social progressives
may contend that business
people working in tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and gambling industries are acting unethically by making and advertising products with potentially dangerous and expensive side effects, such as cancer, alcoholism, and addiction.
People working in these industries could respond by asking whether it is ethical for
people who
don't smoke, drink, or gamble to reject another person's right to do so.
Advertising/making/providing these harmful products/services
may (or
may not) be ethical (it's all relative).
Likewise, it
may/may not be legal (are youth the primary targets of ads? It's hard to tell for certain...).
----------
A survey by the Ethics Resource Center of 1,324 employees of 747 U.S. companies found that
48% of employees surveyed said that they had engaged in one or more unethical and/or illegal actions during the past year.
One might label this 48% of employees as "ILLETHICAL."
