If those terms bound only by honor, I would agree, and frown even upon breaking the spirit of such an agreement, but backed by law (or some other threat), you get only what you can enforce.
I would say this perspective helps me think along a new axis. I don’t fully agree with the statement that breaking the spirit of an agreement, which is backed by law but has fragile enforceability, necessarily equates to not being a wrong act, because there are many examples where the law can be broken because enforceability is weak, even though it’s not advisable to do so. But I do see your point in this case where the terms are not exactly bound by honour. At this juncture, I will do more introspection on this because this seems like a really interesting take.
If those terms bound only by honor, I would agree, and frown even upon breaking the spirit of such an agreement, but backed by law (or some other threat), you get only what you can enforce.
I would say this perspective helps me think along a new axis. I don’t fully agree with the statement that breaking the spirit of an agreement, which is backed by law but has fragile enforceability, necessarily equates to not being a wrong act, because there are many examples where the law can be broken because enforceability is weak, even though it’s not advisable to do so. But I do see your point in this case where the terms are not exactly bound by honour. At this juncture, I will do more introspection on this because this seems like a really interesting take.