That's accurate, Don Palentino, especially the "morals" part. But there is what's called the "honor among thieves." For example, child molesters have a rough time in prison because other cons tend to beat 'em to a pulp for their sins against children. "Honor" may or may not involve morals. It really rather focuses on adhering to what is deemed "right," or what is labeled "acceptable behavior." It all boils down to who is doing the defining. Situational ethics come into play with "honor."

As far as "morals" however, I don't believe that issue is quite so relative. But what's odd is even the mobsters would argue that they're morally upright. They sincerely believe that whacking a guy is not only acceptable but necessary, because they view themselves as soldiers in a war. As far as their "businesses" are concerned, they would argue that all they're doing is responding to the desires of the people they service. That's why Michael can sit in on his godson's baptism as his men whack the other dons and not bat an eye when the priest asks, "Michael, do you renounce Satan?"

Personally, I think their morals are zilch. If morals aren't absolute, then why should we bother with laws, courts, and police enforcement? Even the most primitive tribe in the deepest jungle has a code of morals (incest, for example, would demand the harshest penalty). And honor? You and I know that true-blue honor encompasses morals, integrity, etc. But, as I said, it could pass muster in certain contexts (just maybe not your context or mine). I certainly don't idolize real mobsters, and I don't believe what they do is right or morally acceptable. But I just said all this to demonstrate that in their own eyes, there is no contradiction. But I do believe it's their definition of what's honorable which sets them apart from the gangbangers, crackheads, Russian mobsters, Triads, etc., and gives them at least the appearance of some class.