Grave Robbing

I was thinking about the example Professor Tantillo gave in class about the underlying ethic behind what different cultures do with their dead (that one culture who buries their dead might view another culture's eating of their dead as unethical, but really both are just upholding the underlying ethic of honoring the dead).

I thought of another scenario that applies to this situation. What about grave robbers of the late 18th century and early 19th century who unlawfully took bodies and used them as cadavers in the name of studying human anatomy. For religious reasons and because of society's lack of acceptance for this type of behavior, these people were often severely punished by the law.

But is what they are doing unethical? Does it violate the widely accepted ethic of honoring the dead? Or are they still honoring the dead? OR, are they living by a different set of ethics? Does the government have the right to make laws based on a widely accepted ethic that is not held by everyone? In a practical sense, do the benefits that were gained for science outweigh the importance of honoring the dead? Eventually as pressure was put on different governments, laws like Britain's Anatomy Act of 1832 were passed to make cadavers more available and widespread. If there are two different ethics here, are laws like this a reflection of a change in ethical priorities, or simply a compromise because both ethics are important?