Honesty
Bayard Kip faces an ethical dilemma with respect to the writing off of Dahduh's yacht. The lesson he learns, however, is that honesty in and of itself does not always yield the most perfect result. In Bayard's situation, what happens is that his honesty is essentially turned against him. He had originally believed that his honesty would yield a specific result and was disappointed when the result turned out to be the opposite.
The lesson Bayard learns, then, is the way that honesty can manifest itself in inputs, rather than outputs. Honesty is not an end unto itself. The rational actor, therefore, can only control the honesty and not the result of the honest behavior. In this situation, Bayard benefited greatly from his honesty. This benefit was not the reason Bayard acted honestly, but was instead an unexpected benefit.
The story illustrates that in many cases the ethical dilemma can only be viewed and solved in terms of the inputs. Doing the right thing is important, and is essentially the only component of the dilemma that can be controlled. In many cases, people attempt to resolve ethical dilemmas by evaluating expected outcomes. When the outcomes turn out to be unexpected, however, this does not change the value of the original decision. If the original decision was made ethically, and the outcomes are not intended, this does not invalid that original decision. A decision can only be made with the knowledge at the time. While there is a reasonable expectation of foresight, there is no means by which the decision-maker can have perfect foresight. Thus, Bayard's foresight may have been deficient, but the ethics of his decision were not. His decision afterwards to ignore the outcomes of his decision-making is reasonable. However, he appears to view the rebuilding of his family name as an important outcome of his decision-making. This is a faulty assumption on Bayard's part, which detracts from the lesson and illustrates that he still views dilemmas in terms of their outcomes rather than their inputs.
