I think the point is not one person/group distinction, but directed to participants/directed to outsiders distinction.
In your first example the person in some sense ignores taboo in their interaction with themselves. I don’t even think it’s right to call this taboo social one in relevant sense.
In your second example members of the groups ignored social taboo in their interactions with people not in this group. If they decided “Hey, in out company we can lie to each other any time we want without any punishment” it would probably not end well for them, but it wouldn’t be morally bad.
So, like, social munchkinry is good if you have consent and bad if you haven’t.
I think the point is not one person/group distinction, but directed to participants/directed to outsiders distinction.
In your first example the person in some sense ignores taboo in their interaction with themselves. I don’t even think it’s right to call this taboo social one in relevant sense.
In your second example members of the groups ignored social taboo in their interactions with people not in this group. If they decided “Hey, in out company we can lie to each other any time we want without any punishment” it would probably not end well for them, but it wouldn’t be morally bad.
So, like, social munchkinry is good if you have consent and bad if you haven’t.