> I also don't think it's controversial to say that treating them as transferable undermines the whole point of the award (that they are exclusive, that they are awarded based on merit and careful judgement and not just some free-market commodity that can be bought and sold). If they were, they would be completely worthless.
My point: what's more important "the whole point of awards, trophies etc," or the well being of your country?
I'd gladly "undermine the whole point of the award" if that act offered some more important benefit to the people I care about. The integrity of the awards process is not a very important thing to me, in comparison. If I took such an action, maybe the award-granters would be mad, but who cares about them? They're comfortably ensconced in some paneled office somewhere. They'll be fine.
My point: what's more important "the whole point of awards, trophies etc," or the well being of your country?
I'd gladly "undermine the whole point of the award" if that act offered some more important benefit to the people I care about. The integrity of the awards process is not a very important thing to me, in comparison. If I took such an action, maybe the award-granters would be mad, but who cares about them? They're comfortably ensconced in some paneled office somewhere. They'll be fine.