He made a tactical decision and the taping device was his weapon. It’s just as simple as that and has nothing to do with honor. It’s like Andy Stumpf said. People put way too much into this. Being a Navy Seal doesn’t make you a better person. It is a job title and the bell curve of human virtues applies to them like everyone else.
You have not replied to Sig's observation re "mob" honor. There is absolutely NOTHING dishonorable about recording dishonorable behavior. Ask an honorable person.
OK, since you clearly can’t or simply won’t recognize honor, let’s just go with smart. Taping the conversation was smart because he was being asked to act as a co-conspirator in multiple felonies, and to ignore his personal and his firm’s fiduciary responsibility to his client. Taping the conversation was smart because it cleared himself and his firm from the felonious conduct of the other party. So this person made a smart tactical decision. And given the craven and downright illegal behavior that we’ve come to expect from Wall Street, the term honor is correct and apropos. Maybe the bell curve for honorable behavior is wider in Special Forces than for the rest of us mere mortals. After all, they sure as sugar were filtered and winnowed out in the selection process. Assume that the population entering BUDS training was upper echelon in terms of mental strength and commitment - only 6% of them make it through the pipeline.
Well I certainly don't have to reply to everything That's for sure. Regarding honor, I was not the one who brought this up. My point is that people see a former Navy Seal and automatically assess his actions as honorable. Regarding Navy Seal honor vs. mob honor I think this alone should make it clear that there is no universal agreement about what honor is and what is not. So IMHO your statement "There is absolutely NOTHING dishonorable about recording dishonorable behavior. Ask an honorable person." just reflects your own personal beliefs. Certainly many people would assess a hidden taping of a conversation is dishonorable. Just ask a typical latter-day saint or any other person with high ethical standards.
Yes, I think it was smart. Regarding honor in Special Forces I would really suggest that you listen to that interview with Andy Stumpf.
That's pretty funny, you think a group of religious nuts who believe that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel, that the Earth was created near Kolob over a period of 6,000 years, then moved to its present position in our solar system, and that polygamy was encouraged but then god decided it wasn't allowed are the folks we should be taking honor advice from? I guess I correctly figured out you had a warped source of what honor was I just chose the wrong group of whack jobs you were using as your source! As a frame of reference, I too graduated from one of the service academies. We talk about, and practice, honor a whole lot there. And there's pretty good arguments that there's no relativism in honor and it most certainly isn't based on one's beliefs in invisible imaginary creatures. Not much room for ambiguity in "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."
LOL, so why do you think they had to tell you that? You may want to do some research on moral relativism. That's exactly the reason why they had to tell you that "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." If honor and moral would be universal and absolute than they would not need to tell you. The truth is that there are few things in life that are more relativistic than honor. So they had to develop that very specific code of honor to control the individual and hold it accountable and punish. Not much different than what's going on in the LDS church. It's all about brainwashing and making people obedient. As bone said above - That made my day. Thanks. Over and out.
No one "had to tell" anyone that, there was no debate on if lying, cheating or stealing was honorable among anyone I was associated with, not sure about your associates? It was a code everyone agreed to live by, but like many things in life there's a big difference in knowing what you're supposed to do and actually doing it. Joe Femenia thought that lying, stealing, and cheating was not to be tolerated and took action to make sure the perpetrator of those dishonorable actions was caught and stopped, while you claimed "there is no universal agreement about what honor is and what is not." and apparently think his actions were not honorable....because Mormons! By the way, I'm curious as to how much research you've done on moral relativism? How many serious conversations have you had with others about what is honorable and what isn't? How much Herodotus, Plato, Chuang-Tzu, Kant, Boas, and Rachels have you read? Do you even have the faintest clue who those people are? You are more than welcome to engage in a discussion about moral relativism with me, it's a topic I hold serious interest in. But in no universe do you get to tell me I "may want to do some research" on it given that you clearly know FA about it and are clearly only interested in trolling versus having a serious conversation.