The Open Source Definition requires:
No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
The Free Software Definition requires:
- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
A free/libre license must not limit how the software is used. Note that it is nonsensical to forbid actions in a license that are already illegal.
Additionally, it is problematic to bind the license to behaviour that the author deems ethical. There is no universal system of ethics, and morality is highly dependent on the personal viewpoint. Software licensing is not a good place for philosophical discussions.
Free/libre licenses do express values through their terms and conditions (and in the preamble of the GPL), but these values have no legal significance beyond the terms in which they are expressed. For example, permissive licenses like MIT value the freedom to do whatever you want with the source code, whereas the copyleft GPL values the freedom of end users to examine and tinker with the software they use. Those different goals are furthered through the specific conditions in the licenses.
As an example of a license that explicitly touches on ethics, the JSON license is basically MIT + the following sentence:
The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
That is not only meaningless and legally unenforceable, it also renders the license non-free.
None of the free/libre licenses is “better” than the other. The MIT, BSD, and GPL licenses all include no restrictions on how the software may be used. If you publish open source software, you will have to tolerate that the software may be used in ways that you don't like.