To play Devil's advocate (no pun intended).
This group advocates free thought, and "humanist values" in the absence of religious, superstitious, or other traditional moral or framework. That has an impact on how they can allow themselves to define what is moral or ethical.
Joe has taken an action that is contrary to the concept of the ethic of reciprocity established as the foundation of most religions. In essence he is engaging in "Free Thought" by advancing the concept that his own personal beliefs and thoughts (no matter what they are) overrule the generally accepted moral behaviors of of society (religious or otherwise).
In reviewing the struggle Humanist organizations have in defining what is moral or ethical (
http://www.humanistvalues.org.uk/) and the resistance they encourage in establishing such (because after all, it that would require some degree of finite judgement), one has to come to the conclusion that it would be against the philosophy of Humanism and certainly outside of the general concept of Free Thought to pass judgement on Joe for choosing to break an agreement or contract. While it would be generally accepted under Humanism to treat people with respect, there is no ethical or moral requirement, because there is no foundation for such.
In fact, for Camp Quest to engage in judgement, and the subsequent organized admonishment of Joe shows little respect for Joe's practice of Free Thought. While it is true that one of the stated values of Camp Quest is "Integrity" of which typically, honesty or virtue are considered components, unfortunately Camp Quest can only use this value in the most basic of ways without promoting some finite definitions of how a person can be judged as honest or virtuous. For Free Thinkers, the concept of integrity must remain a fluid concept, otherwise it becomes the component of a belief system, and at odds with their mission.
As long as Joe has done nothing that can be considered against the law, Camp Quest is not being true to their "Values" by persecuting him, because they are engaging in judgment based on some belief that there is an established and finite definition of integrity, virtue, or honesty. Science provides no such definition, so they are acting contrary to the very mission they profess.
To view the situation from a completely scientific position:
Through an exchange of information, not previously evaluated, Joe came to the late interpretation that this group, Camp Quest, posed a danger (right or wrong, it does not matter). This caused an immediate adrenal response and triggered the self-preservation instinct, causing Joe to flee from his previous agreement. Joe had a very typical human experience that happens ever day in the animal world. To uphold his agreement with Camp Quest, would have been
un-natural (and therefore un-scientific) because it would require the concept of moral reciprocity, and the realization that his actions would be judged based on established and finite criteria.
Split a piece of wood.
