Immoral but not illegal: monies vs mores amid the mortgage meltdown

Abstract

Discussions of ethics become especially intense when the law governing actions taken is at variance with public perception of its correctness. In the US, famous cases illustrating this point include the Scopes trial (about teaching evolution in public schools) and Roe v. Wade (permitting women the right to an abortion). In the realm of business ethics, a clear instance of this disconnect between questionable actions taken and their legal ramifications occurs with the subprime mortgage ‘meltdown’ and its impact on the US and world economies. Here, we consider this case in the broader context of the continuing evolution and cycles of legal logics, noting how – depending on which dominates in a particular era – actions deemed punishable in one epoch may not be seen as violations in another.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.