I don’t agree with “wholesomeness” as a moral guide but I did at least understand it if you were defining it as conformity with the existing system.

If I’ve understood you correctly now the maxim is “act wholesomely (conforming with prevailing rules and expectations) unless that wouldn’t in fact be wholesome (which in this context is defined differently, as meaning ‘having consideration for what is good for the whole’).”

(Or to use your architectural analogy, build your building in line with the others unless there’s a good reason not to)

That’s fine, as far as it goes, although we are asking “wholesome” to do a lot of work there with two meanings and ultimately it still ends up as being a synonym for “good” (or perhaps “good for the whole”).

Ultimately if what you’re saying is that acting in line with established expectations is a good rule of thumb unless there’s a good reason not to, and that we should have ethical consideration for the whole (all entities deserving of moral consideration) then that’s hard to argue with. But it doesn’t move us much further on ethics because “good” is still undefined and the scope of those deserving ethical consideration is still undefined.

The central problem with the ethical system that you have outlined here is that it does not allow for challenge to the prevailing cultural norms.

Acting wholesomely means paying attention to the whole system around us, and contributing well as a part of that whole without introducing unnecessary friction or pain points

is fine in a system which is working well, but entirely inappropriate in a system which needs radical reform, which your ethical framework does not allow for.

Allow me to adopt some of your examples to demonstrate when "unwholesome" activity is, I would argue, morally appropriate or indeed praiseworthy.

You write that

Skirting the law for convenience

and

Disregarding rules for personal benefit

are both unwholesome and therefore not permitted under this ethical system. Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the right seat on the bus was doing both of these things. Was she acting unwholesomely?

If you define wholesomeness as conformity with the whole system around her then she was indeed being unwholesome. But was she acting unethically? I would argue no, because the system around her was broken and in need of radical reform, and therefore acting "wholesomely" within that system is not morally required.

There are many other problematic examples I could give:

• "Disregarding rules for personal benefit" describes everyone who had a homosexual relationship before they were legal.
• Slaves who escaped from their captors were "disregarding rules for personal benefit".
• "Gaming systems that others have established, in ways that aren’t aligned with the intent of the creators" does indeed sound problematic, unless the "creators" of the system are, for instance, the German Nazi government. In that case I would argue the French resistance should feel entirely morally able to game the Nazi systems if that's the best way to smuggle Jewish refugees out of occupied France.
• "Insincere flattery, to get someone to think well of you" does feel kind of yuck, but what if the ends outweigh the means? Is my theoretical French resistance fighter really not allowed to charm a Nazi border guard because it's not wholesome?

Aligning morality with "wholesomeness" works, I think, if you are happy with the outline of the world in which one lives^[1]. But a central tenet of meta-ethics is that ethical systems should be universalisable. They have to work as well in 2023 (or another world in which you approve of the prevailing systems) as they would in 1950s Alabama or 1930s Nazi Germany.

Conformity with the system around us fails this test.

1. ^{^}

   Although I would note that it becomes unworkable when you consider that being "happy with the world" is an entirely subjective perspective. It really just becomes an appeal to "follow the status quo".