Few people would disagree with the statement that we live in a very competitive time. Competition for jobs grows tougher as more and more jobs are sent overseas. We must compete even for the most basic things such as medical care and housing. The elderly poor may be consigned to die in government funded hospices while the wealthy enjoy every comfort and advantage that modern science can offer. Rental housing is awarded only to those with the highest credit scores and the best references. The question is, Does all of this competition force us to become cheaters? In order to answer that question, we must define "cheating" and look closely at what the rules really are.

         What does it mean to cheat? Is it cheating to enhance one's resume' when it is going to be measured against other equally padded resume's? Is it wrong to hide a pre-existing condition from an insurance company while trying to provide health care to one's family? Is it okay to set up fake rental references when looking for a place to live? Some people would consider it to be cheating against one's own family if one were to risk becoming unemployed, uninsured, or homeless by failing to break the rules in the above situations.

         Even if cheating were not required, it is certainly a favorite pass-time. We learn that the President of the United States has been eavesdropping on members of the press, but we are shocked when students try to peak at exam questions. We see the most successful corporations routinely breaking environmental laws, busting unions, and giving fat bonuses to top executives while, at the same time, bankrupting pension funds. We hold the biggest and best cheaters in high regard while regarding shoplifting and welfare fraud with contempt. In the middle ground, we find tax evasion, exagerated insurance claims, and stealing office supplies. It appears that the rightness or wrongness of cheating depends upon how successfully we can do it.

         How then, do we know when cheating is required of us and when it is simply wrong? Even the most universal rules ? like "Do not kill" ? seem to have some wiggle room. If it is always wrong to kill, then why is it okay to justify the death penalty by saying that it is economical? How is it okay to bomb innocent woman and children in foreign countries? Maybe the rule should be, "Do not kill unless it is the most conveniant sollution." Even our most hard and fast rules -- our most basic societal tenets -- seem to depend upon context, which can change.

         The quest to develop a moral compass is complicated by excessive competition, the reverence we give to our best cheaters, and the flexibility of our most universal rules. The only constant seems to be self-interest. The phrase "Cheaters never prosper" has become a fairy tale. Perhaps a more enduring credo would be: "To thine own self be true."