[TylerJewell]

There are social and religious experts much more qualified than me to address your question.

However, I've heard stories from social experts that indicate it is ethical to conduct crime, organized or otherwise, because the consequences are defined. In your scenario, though, stealing's punishment is jail and repayment of the amount stolen. So, the trade off is a bit different.

That's not my position on the matter, but it's thought provoking.

Morality on the other hand...

[mattw]

It seems if one were to listen to those social experts, all of society would become a game of incentives and disincentives where the goal is finding the mismatched pairs (i.e. action where incentive outweighs disincentive, regardless of what the action is - whether it be walking away from a mortgage or robbing a store). In that scheme ethics (and morality - I don't think there's a difference) become purely relative, because value is an inherently relative concept.

Not being a moral relativist, I naturally disagree with the idea that such a society is desirable or that ethics in that case are even meaningful at all. :) Which is one of the things that disturbs me about the idea of an action being ethical just because it's defined in a contract.