You're arguing about the individual definitions of specific words while ignoring the overall question. Nobody here cares about the subtle differences you see be

You're arguing about the individual definitions of specific words while ignoring the overall question. Nobody here cares about the subtle differences you see between "ethics" and "morals." Here's the question: if you have the opportunity to save hundreds or thousands of lives by breaking a minor law, are you justified in breaking that law? Many of us would say yes. The alternative is absurd, it doesn't hold up in the real world. How many widely accepted historical heroes do we have who broke laws to save lives? tfehring's point still stands, and I think you should respond to their post using the meaning that they obviously intended before you get mired down in a more pedantic debate over the technical definition of individual words.