Honor is what separates men from animals. We all get to choose which we are.
I think you are mostly reacting to GP's word choice of "moral flexibility," and are missing the point.
Do the moral thing, but view the legal as pay-to-play.
A great example is parking tickets. Violating parking rules results in a fine and is not immoral in many situations.
I understand and agree with that.
"Having moral flexibility helps so much. Being actively willing to "fuck over" arbitrary, faceless entities makes all the difference. If you start looking at the law in terms of "how much does it cost to do whatever I want", then you are now effectively playing by the same rules as those who seek to control your life."
This clearly advocates no honor at all. It is not dishonorable to not follow an unjust law (such as a law requiring you to inform on your neighbors), but it is dishonorable to be a cheater because others are cheating.
and please define what honor means to you in this conversation, we've moved too far past pithiness.
They are the same. You said it yourself: STEALING
Doing something that negatively impacts their stock price could be categorized as "stealing" from a billionaire. Is that really stealing?
Purposely infringing on a company's trademarks/copyrights/marketing/etc (I don't mean pirating movies/books/etc) to gain publicity/get started could be called stealing from that company. But I don't consider that immoral in the slightest.
There often isn't simple terminology for discussing these differences, so people use shortcuts like this.
> Doing something that negatively impacts their stock price could be categorized as "stealing" from a billionaire. Is that really stealing?
No. There isn't much of a grey area around stealing.
> not meant to be literal
What's amusing when people try to reframe stealing as "liberating", or "getting paid", meaning they know it's dishonorable.
Such is the case when I'm talking about subjects I have practical experience in but little formal knowledge of.
A friend of mine years ago worked at Microsoft. He noticed that one of his colleagues was pilfering things in the office, and when asked about it said it was ok to steal from Microsoft because it was a wealthy company. One day, he found a stack of 4 hubcaps on his chair. He asked around, and my friend said "oh, I put those on your chair. I figured I'd give you a hand so you don't have to steal hubcaps from the parking lot." He got the message and that was the end of the pilfering.
I disagree with this. Cheating can be moral or immoral. Cheating just means not following the rules. At least as often as not, the rules are meant to maintain the status quo or benefit the existing organizations.
Terms of Service (TOS) are great examples of this. Companies blatantly stick in illegal terms just because they can since it's expensive to challenge them. I don't want you to do this, so I will make unfair rules in my favor.
That said, I agree with the sentiment, but it's too reductive to allow the creativity needed in problem-solving to compete against entities that have many times the resources.
When you agree to follow the rules, and then cheat, that is dishonorable. Even if everyone else does it (the Lance Armstrong defense).
What's your word worth to you?
How could you even square that view with something like the civil disobedience of Gandhi or MLK Jr.?
When I'm in a situation where one party is able to make demands unilaterally, then my word is worthless. And I will gleefully disregard portions of these agreements.
On the other hand, when all parties have at least some consideration, my word is worth its weight in gold.
That's a pretty sad thing to say.
> How could you even square that view with something like the civil disobedience of Gandhi or MLK Jr.?
Did they break rules they freely agreed to? I don't think so.
It's not dishonorable to do things forced to do at gunpoint.
My dad taught me the importance of being honest early on. It was very important to him and it's important to me. I teach my kids the same thing.
If you're a dishonest person, everyone will know it and treat you accordingly. It'll be the first thing out of someone's mouth when asked about you. It's not a shortcut. Even though some people can win that way, most don't.
the GP hit the nail on the head saying,
> If you start looking at the law in terms of "how much does it cost to do whatever I want", then you are now effectively playing by the same rules as those who seek to control your life.
laws are for the powerless.
if you really think the kingdom can be neatly divided into wolverines, nuthatches, and happy people on one side, and "honorable" people on the other side, you do you. aren't you amazed that an animal like me can argue with you though?
Like I said, each of us gets to make that choice.
An observation - many people brag about things like cheating in school "because everybody does it", or other excuses. When other people hear these, they smile and nod and move them to the "do not trust" list in their heads. The cheaters unwittingly miss out on a lot of opportunities that way.
But understanding that doesn't give you any power back. Knowing that you can just pay large fines to do illegal business things doesn't help someone who isn't running a business or can afford to pay those large fines
It allows you to maybe optimize for a different state within the system, but that state will still be one that you are "allowed" to optimize for.
Knowing the casino is rigged does not give you the ability to beat the house. It only allows you to better decide to go home, but in reality there's no equivalent to "going home".
There is also the fact that many things you could be fined for aren't worth it if you're small enough not to be a threat. Most of those threats come from other companies holding you to the flame, not from public institutions.
Follow the rules enforced by public institutions, but take risks when it's not worth it for private institutions to complain.
That said, if you don't have money for multiple years of expenses, it doesn't help you much directly.
They can include literally anything they come up with and often, with enough time and rewriting, make it sound fair and equitable.
How do you propose addressing that? You can't be on the rules-making groups of every institution you participate in.
Tell me what standard of conduct do you ascribe to if fairness or equity aren't included? It sounds like you have an unrealistically strict definition of honor if those aren't included.
I never said that being honorable was the only thing I aspire to. Fairness and equity are different topics. It shares some aspects with morality, but is not interchangeable with morality.
Honor is things like keeping your word. Not taking things from others that aren't yours. Not trying to trick or force others into doing things. Not being abusive towards others. Not betraying a confidence. Not cheating.
Is dishonesty such a hard concept?
Doing the moral thing in many of those situations requires going against the laws or rules of those unjust systems. In other words, it requires cheating for the purpose of changing the system.
Civil rights disobedience, Gandhi's fight for independence in India, fighting against monopolies, and unionizing all require rejecting others' rules or laws which you feel are immoral.
If you go around telling people that it's fine to steal from them, do you think they'll consider doing business with you? I wouldn't.
I had a conversation once with the contractor who was fixing my roof. He said that he'd have a customer now and then who didn't pay. He said the roofing contractors all knew each other, and they kept a list of those customers and would refuse to bid on jobs for them.