The idea that you can have morals and ethics without sometimes acting on them is also sort of incoherent. If you claim to believe it is immoral to do something and then do business in spite of that, it directly puts the lie to your claim. This is separate from whether you believe that there should be legal consequences or other government action attached to certain acts.
This seems a bit extreme to me. In my view, the line is crossed when it’s used for fraud, i.e. misrepresenting the truth (for whatever purpose).
Face-swapping Daniel Craig’s face onto my body, and showing it to my friends, is neither immoral nor unethical — it’s actually kind of funny.
It can be fine in a news context, but there's not a lot of faked videos that would be appropriate in that context.
I even thought the faked Fred Astaire ad was in poor taste.
http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/kellimarshall/clips/A...
This depends on your ethical system and your reasons for believing it immoral. For example, if the circumstances change enough to move something from immoral to merely neutral, some ethical systems will then allow you to do it. A utilitarian example: you might generally find something immoral (because it causes harm) but in the presence of somebody who gets great pleasure from it, you find it allowable (actually, it becomes a moral duty to the utilitarian, but you get the gist).
Not necessarily, doing business with someone means purchasing their services or products, it doesn't mean I agree with everything they do (with that money). Business is not charity.
Otherwise I probably wouldn't be able to buy half my black metal collection :)