Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Prosperous Hypocrite or Honest Pauper?

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 4:49:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Would it be better to be a prosperous hypocrite or an honest pauper? Feel free to answer this from practical and ethical standpoints.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 4:52:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:49:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Would it be better to be a prosperous hypocrite or an honest pauper? Feel free to answer this from practical and ethical standpoints.

I suppose I value principle over utility so I would argue an honest pauper would be better.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 4:53:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At the very least I would rather be friends with an honest pauper.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 4:56:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:52:45 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:49:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Would it be better to be a prosperous hypocrite or an honest pauper? Feel free to answer this from practical and ethical standpoints.

I suppose I value principle over utility so I would argue an honest pauper would be better.

I think that's a fair point, but should principle always be obeyed? For instance, suppose you value the principle of bodily integrity, self-ownership, or pacifism. You feel that all violence is wrong. Then, suppose you have the choice of pin pricking someone's hand without their consent (thus engaging in violence against them), or allowing them to die. Clearly, the principle should give in this case in order to preserve a greater good.

Is hypocrisy really that bad a fault? Is it truly so condemnable that we would prefer to be indigent than hypocritical? Should the principle give?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 4:59:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:53:18 PM, kasmic wrote:
At the very least I would rather be friends with an honest pauper.

This I can concur with.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 5:00:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:56:40 PM, kp98 wrote:
Its not one or the other - it's a sliding scale we all find ourselves somewhere on.

Right, but that's not answering the question. I am asking if you had just those two choices, which would you go with and why?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 5:08:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:49:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Would it be better to be a prosperous hypocrite or an honest pauper? Feel free to answer this from practical and ethical standpoints.

To paraphrase St. Augustine... Lord, make me an honest pauper, but not yet.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 5:16:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I suppose I value principle over utility so I would argue an honest pauper would be better.

I think that's a fair point, but should principle always be obeyed?

I think that principles should weigh heavily. Though, not sure I would commit to always obeyed. Some values weigh greater than others and sometimes they conflict. Like Justice and Mercy.

I guess I am saying I would hope people behaved based on principles, plural. Then in circumstances of conflict weigh the options principally.

For instance, suppose you value the principle of bodily integrity, self-ownership, or pacifism. You feel that all violence is wrong. Then, suppose you have the choice of pin pricking someone's hand without their consent (thus engaging in violence against them), or allowing them to die. Clearly, the principle should give in this case in order to preserve a greater good.

So in this case you have two principles... Harm, and life. In this case I think the Harm is minimal and Life is almost always going to weigh heavier to me. So I would act on the principle of preserving human life

Is hypocrisy really that bad a fault? Is it truly so condemnable that we would prefer to be indigent than hypocritical? Should the principle give?

Great Question. I think hypocrisy is bad, though not sure how you weigh it. Depends on the circumstance I suppose.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 5:33:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Right, but that's not answering the question. I am asking if you had just those two choices, which would you go with and why?

Well, how much prosperity do I get for how much hypocrisy and how poor for how much honesty? Is it a choice between a very slightly hypocritical billionaire and a marginally-more-honest-than-not not tramp?

I'll be honest - I'd put up with a fair bit of hypocrisy for a billion while a smelly tramp would have to be more then just honest to be my bosom pal. But we rarely get such extreme choices - real people are neither total hypocrites or totally honest. And most people are neither totally properous or totally broke.

So it depends how hypocrtical, how rich, how honest and how poor are we talking here?
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 5:55:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:16:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
For instance, suppose you value the principle of bodily integrity, self-ownership, or pacifism. You feel that all violence is wrong. Then, suppose you have the choice of pin pricking someone's hand without their consent (thus engaging in violence against them), or allowing them to die. Clearly, the principle should give in this case in order to preserve a greater good.

So in this case you have two principles... Harm, and life. In this case I think the Harm is minimal and Life is almost always going to weigh heavier to me. So I would act on the principle of preserving human life

That's not the hypothetical, though, Kasmic. Suppose you believed in absolute pacifism, and you can never harm at all. Or, suppose you were a hardcore Nozickean Libertarian--you would have to respect the individual's self-ownership even if it cost them their life. Should these principles be surrendered, if only temporarily, to save a life?

Is hypocrisy really that bad a fault? Is it truly so condemnable that we would prefer to be indigent than hypocritical? Should the principle give?

Great Question. I think hypocrisy is bad, though not sure how you weigh it. Depends on the circumstance I suppose.

Right, I would say that--in general--hypocrisy is not so bad that indigence is preferable.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 5:56:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:33:17 PM, kp98 wrote:
Right, but that's not answering the question. I am asking if you had just those two choices, which would you go with and why?

Well, how much prosperity do I get for how much hypocrisy and how poor for how much honesty? Is it a choice between a very slightly hypocritical billionaire and a marginally-more-honest-than-not not tramp?

Just based on the question itself, what would you choose?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:05:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:55:43 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/20/2015 5:16:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
For instance, suppose you value the principle of bodily integrity, self-ownership, or pacifism. You feel that all violence is wrong. Then, suppose you have the choice of pin pricking someone's hand without their consent (thus engaging in violence against them), or allowing them to die. Clearly, the principle should give in this case in order to preserve a greater good.

So in this case you have two principles... Harm, and life. In this case I think the Harm is minimal and Life is almost always going to weigh heavier to me. So I would act on the principle of preserving human life

That's not the hypothetical, though, Kasmic. Suppose you believed in absolute pacifism, and you can never harm at all. Or, suppose you were a hardcore Nozickean Libertarian--you would have to respect the individual's self-ownership even if it cost them their life. Should these principles be surrendered, if only temporarily, to save a life?

Is hypocrisy really that bad a fault? Is it truly so condemnable that we would prefer to be indigent than hypocritical? Should the principle give?

Great Question. I think hypocrisy is bad, though not sure how you weigh it. Depends on the circumstance I suppose.

Right, I would say that--in general--hypocrisy is not so bad that indigence is preferable.

On a side note... how "good" is honesty. I suppose an honest pauper could be a real jerk and just be honest about it.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:07:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 6:05:47 PM, kasmic wrote:

On a side note... how "good" is honesty. I suppose an honest pauper could be a real jerk and just be honest about it.

That's a good question. Honesty isn't always a virtue.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:28:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A prosperous hypocrite. I never got a job from an honest pauper. A world of honest paupers would be a world of starvation and third world living standards.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:33:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 6:28:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
A prosperous hypocrite. I never got a job from an honest pauper. A world of honest paupers would be a world of starvation and third world living standards.

Being a parent is the apex of hypocrisy to a child. I tell my children they can't do things I do all the time.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 2:48:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:56:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:52:45 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:49:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Would it be better to be a prosperous hypocrite or an honest pauper? Feel free to answer this from practical and ethical standpoints.

I suppose I value principle over utility so I would argue an honest pauper would be better.

I think that's a fair point, but should principle always be obeyed? For instance, suppose you value the principle of bodily integrity, self-ownership, or pacifism. You feel that all violence is wrong. Then, suppose you have the choice of pin pricking someone's hand without their consent (thus engaging in violence against them), or allowing them to die. Clearly, the principle should give in this case in order to preserve a greater good.

Is hypocrisy really that bad a fault? Is it truly so condemnable that we would prefer to be indigent than hypocritical? Should the principle give?

This only works if the principles you adhere to are wrong. If something is both good and against your principles, then there's obviously something wrong with either your evaluation of the thing or the principles you're upholding - if something really is good, then the principles that you uphold wouldn't exclude them. In this way, a "prosperous hypocrite" is a contradiction in terms (if "prosperous" roughly means "moral") - if your principles were accurate then they would lead to prosperity and therefore someone who rejects them could never be prosperous.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 2:51:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:55:43 PM, bsh1 wrote:

Suppose you believed in absolute pacifism, and you can never harm at all. Or, suppose you were a hardcore Nozickean Libertarian--you would have to respect the individual's self-ownership even if it cost them their life. Should these principles be surrendered, if only temporarily, to save a life?

To concretize my previous comment:

If a Nozickean framework was right, then, by definition, it cannot be right to reject it for whatever reason. If something that would conflict with it was the right thing to do then there's a flaw inherent in the system of principles which needs to be mended anyway. A truly perfect set of principles wouldn't need exceptions to the rule because it would already account for such situations internally.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 5:51:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:49:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Would it be better to be a prosperous hypocrite or an honest pauper? Feel free to answer this from practical and ethical standpoints.

If I had no further information than this, I'd pick the latter; while I probably could be induced with wealth for a certain amount of hypocrisy on a sort of sliding scale, with undefined quantities I would distrust the cost/benefit ratio. I've seen the twilight zone, it rarely ends well.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 5:58:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As long as I can eat enough to live, I'd be happier being the pauper. I'm not for sale, and ultimately I have to look at myself in the mirror.

The wealthy hippocrate can lose all his money, and his reputation is gone, but the pauper will atleast have his reputation.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 6:04:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:56:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:52:45 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:49:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Would it be better to be a prosperous hypocrite or an honest pauper? Feel free to answer this from practical and ethical standpoints.

I suppose I value principle over utility so I would argue an honest pauper would be better.

I think that's a fair point, but should principle always be obeyed? For instance, suppose you value the principle of bodily integrity, self-ownership, or pacifism. You feel that all violence is wrong. Then, suppose you have the choice of pin pricking someone's hand without their consent (thus engaging in violence against them), or allowing them to die. Clearly, the principle should give in this case in order to preserve a greater good.

Is hypocrisy really that bad a fault? Is it truly so condemnable that we would prefer to be indigent than hypocritical? Should the principle give?

I think if you choose to save the guy, maybe you only thought pacifism was your highest moral principle. Clearly you've found some principle you value more than pacifism. I think the pin prick example is more of an admittance that you're wrong about pacifism than being a hypocrite.

I think most pacifists, know that there are things more important than not committing acts of violence, but they're just trying to tell you their moral philosophy in the quickest and simplest way possible. Honesty takes a back seat to expediency in explaining their philosophy.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 6:07:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
@Kasmic, I'd argue that principle and utility are the same thing here. Being ethical, is a reward in and of itself. If you're happier being a hypocrite and sipping 100 year old wine, go ahead. Most people are happier being honest and sipping boxed wine.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 6:44:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:49:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Would it be better to be a prosperous hypocrite or an honest pauper? Feel free to answer this from practical and ethical standpoints.

How can you tell the difference between truth and lies anyway? Not meaning to be facetious, but if there's no such thing as objective truth, what difference does it make?
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 8:28:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 2:48:17 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:56:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:52:45 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:49:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Would it be better to be a prosperous hypocrite or an honest pauper? Feel free to answer this from practical and ethical standpoints.

I suppose I value principle over utility so I would argue an honest pauper would be better.

I think that's a fair point, but should principle always be obeyed? For instance, suppose you value the principle of bodily integrity, self-ownership, or pacifism. You feel that all violence is wrong. Then, suppose you have the choice of pin pricking someone's hand without their consent (thus engaging in violence against them), or allowing them to die. Clearly, the principle should give in this case in order to preserve a greater good.

Is hypocrisy really that bad a fault? Is it truly so condemnable that we would prefer to be indigent than hypocritical? Should the principle give?

This only works if the principles you adhere to are wrong. If something is both good and against your principles, then there's obviously something wrong with either your evaluation of the thing or the principles you're upholding - if something really is good, then the principles that you uphold wouldn't exclude them. In this way, a "prosperous hypocrite" is a contradiction in terms (if "prosperous" roughly means "moral") - if your principles were accurate then they would lead to prosperity and therefore someone who rejects them could never be prosperous.

Right, I would argue that it's impossible to find principles to find perfect principles that perfectly address all situations. For instance, I really like Care Ethics, but I acknowledge it imperfectly describes morality.

So, while I might agree with the conclusions Care Ethics draws in 90% of cases--and is thus a set of principles I ascribe to--there are cases where I don't follow those principles because I don't feel as if they are moral in a particular situation.

By prosperous I meant materially wealthy, to contrast with pauper.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:12:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 8:28:26 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/21/2015 2:48:17 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:56:36 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:52:45 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:49:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Would it be better to be a prosperous hypocrite or an honest pauper? Feel free to answer this from practical and ethical standpoints.

I suppose I value principle over utility so I would argue an honest pauper would be better.

I think that's a fair point, but should principle always be obeyed? For instance, suppose you value the principle of bodily integrity, self-ownership, or pacifism. You feel that all violence is wrong. Then, suppose you have the choice of pin pricking someone's hand without their consent (thus engaging in violence against them), or allowing them to die. Clearly, the principle should give in this case in order to preserve a greater good.

Is hypocrisy really that bad a fault? Is it truly so condemnable that we would prefer to be indigent than hypocritical? Should the principle give?

This only works if the principles you adhere to are wrong. If something is both good and against your principles, then there's obviously something wrong with either your evaluation of the thing or the principles you're upholding - if something really is good, then the principles that you uphold wouldn't exclude them. In this way, a "prosperous hypocrite" is a contradiction in terms (if "prosperous" roughly means "moral") - if your principles were accurate then they would lead to prosperity and therefore someone who rejects them could never be prosperous.

Right, I would argue that it's impossible to find principles to find perfect principles that perfectly address all situations. For instance, I really like Care Ethics, but I acknowledge it imperfectly describes morality.

So, while I might agree with the conclusions Care Ethics draws in 90% of cases--and is thus a set of principles I ascribe to--there are cases where I don't follow those principles because I don't feel as if they are moral in a particular situation.
If you can identity those exceptions, though, why can't you hold principles which cover them? Can't you just say that your principles are to apply Care Ethics in most situations and whatever else in the remainder? How is that any less of a principled approach than accepting Care Ethics universally?
By prosperous I meant materially wealthy, to contrast with pauper.

In that case I would prefer the honest pauper.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:16:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:49:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Would it be better to be a prosperous hypocrite or an honest pauper? Feel free to answer this from practical and ethical standpoints.

Considering that the human race is a society of liars, being a hypocrite is rampant.

Considering getting more stuff allows one to accomplish their own goals, being true to themselves.

I suppose it is wiser to be a prosperous hypocrite, (hopefully being exposed does not take one's prosperity away) so that you can have the power to affect the things one honestly cares about.

A very ends justifies the means arguments. But considering humans make decisions then rationalize them, the moral quarrels should be relatively un-encountered.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 8:11:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd be the prosperous hypcorite for sure. I'd rather be rich and honest, but if I can't have both I'm taking the more fun option.

I only get one life. I plan to enjoy it.