Henry IV Response

Upon further consideration of my big questions, it seems that I am asking this:
In the face of adversity, is it ever necessary to throw out morals and ethics for the sake of survival??


In Henry IV, Falstaff does just this in Act 5 of the play. He believes that honor is merely a word, and that it certainly shouldn't taint his determination for survival. With this frame of mind he plays dead to avoid death and claims killing Hotspur to further his own wellbeing. Falstaff's forsaken morals never stood a chance in adversity, let alone in times of peace and tranquility. But is Falstaff better off by doing this? His immoral lifestyle certainly keeps him alive, it exclusively looks after him and him alone, but it seems little else. Falstaff sacrifices respect and dignity by living in deceit and indulging himself in whatever way he deems fit, i.e. eating, drinking, and as a result lives seemingly eternally as a drunkard thief. This is certainly not an admirable way to live, Falstaff will always live looking up to those who support a lifestyle involving some sort of moral code. In fact, we last see Falstaff following Lancaster and the Prince, vowing to lie his way into fortune. Because he did not courageously fight he is not on the same level of companionship with the others, and is treated accordingly. Even when he seemingly convinces at least Lancaster about killing Hotspur, nothing changes; Falstaff exudes a sense of indecency that will follow him wherever he goes. This could be considered worse than the death he avoided. He simply does not speak the language of honor that the others abide by. So for all practical purposes, it was not necessary for Falstaff to act as he did, morals should be abided by in nearly every circumstance.