I can be happy and sad. Other people make me happy and sad, and I can make other people happy or sad. Generally, if I feel someone else is happy for some reason that relates to me, something I did, then it makes me happy. On this basis, I try to either not impinge on other peoples’ happiness, or to make them happy. On this basis I avoid violence, harsh or untrue speech and acts.
I don’t feel a need to act ethically and honestly towards companies and corporations. Modern retail practices involve deception, false advertising, unfair terms and condition, unrepairable products etc. On this basis, I don’t feel the need to respect their private property laws and not steal. I don’t see the need to respect intellectual property laws and am happy to steal copyrighted material, and on this basis I give away most of my own produced content as at least one free option.
Analysis of the above
This reasoning could be seen as a form of moral relativism, where you justify unethical actions based on the behavior of others. This may lead to a slippery slope where any unethical behavior can be justified if one perceives the other party as acting unethically.
Cognitive Dissonance: There may be an element of cognitive dissonance in these beliefs. I advocate for happiness and the avoidance of harm to others, but justify actions that could harm individuals associated with corporations. Addressing this dissonance could strengthen my ethical argument. I can avoid this somewhat by buying direct from authors and content providers, but the employees of the corporations will be adversely affected, so there is still moral relativism. But if content creation paid more, the employees could also be the creators.