"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.
I read this as a shortcut phrasing, not meant to be literal.
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.
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.
> it is dishonorable to be a cheater because others are cheating
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.
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.
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.
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.