Ethics vs. supply and demand

Thanks to the effort of many scientists, philosophers, and other thinkers throughout history, ethical norms have become very well defined.  Some of these “rules” are so well established that they transcend cultural barriers.  For instance adultery, theft, and fraud are considered wrong by a large assortment of cultures.  But some other things manage to transcend cultural boundaries as well as (if not better than) the strongest, ethics.  At least, it certainly seems that way.  Case in point: the black market.  If somebody wants something they are not supposed to have, and if they are willing to do enough for it, somebody else will be more than happy to give it to them.  Take the case of Yuri Orlov, the protagonist in Lord of War.  Orlov is a prolific arms dealer; the quintessential ‘merchant of death.’  His M.O is discussed in the following clip (couldn't embed for some reason).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INy4Ro9tLQE

We can clearly see his consequentialistic views here: he doesn’t care who made the stuff he’s selling, who he’s selling it to, or what they’ll do with it.  All that matters in the end is Orlov’s payday.  Although one could argue that Orlov still uses some form of ethical thinking (albeit a very ego driven one), this thinking provides his reason for throwing other ethical considerations out the window.  So which side ultimately wins?  Is it ethics or capitalism which is more powerful?  Over the course of this film (which I highly recommend seeing), the answer ultimately proves to be murky and clouded.  Just like the world of arms trafficking.