Is insider trading less unethical than assault or other violent crimes? Why or why not?

Yes. I think attacks on the body are the most unethical. Attacks on the pocketbook are bad, too, of course, but murder is the most heinous crime, in my book.

Battery (beating or otherwise injuring someone but not quite killing them) is next in line. Assault (getting into someone's personal space against their consent, but not actually hurting them) comes after offenses to the pocketbook. I would rather someone harass me (assault) than steal my purse, but only just barely.

Of course a vicious assault to a human is worse than just stealing their money. Both would have a negative emotional impact but the physical damage is alot worse. It is much easier to overcome a loss in the market than being attacked.

Most insider trading has a limited effect due to the nature of the crime.

More people can get hurt as a result of large-scale fraud.

Insider trading is unethical, but assault is not merely unethical, it's a crime against a person. A person's life and dignity always has higher value than any amount of money, which makes insider trading less of a crime than an assault or other violent crimes.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.