Big Question with respect to King Henry IV: Part I

Shakespeare's King Henry IV: Part I, to me, seems to be a commentary about honor and how it contributed to lifestyles at the time. For one character, Falstaff, the whole idea of honor is nothing but hot air and wasted effort that does no one any good. His character throughout the entire play depicts mankind as amoral and he always, without fault, takes the more convenient route through life. King Henry wanted the kingship to such a great degree that he ignored rectitude in exchange for the monarchy. His character throughout the play, however, is plagued by this ignominious action and his conscience frequently kicks in. Prince Hal desires to fiddle around with the commoners at the beginning of the play so as not to keep expectations of him elevated. To me, that sounds like taking the more convenient route to solving his problems. Yet, when his father castigated him for meddling in the affairs of the common man and not taking his position as Prince seriously, he quickly shaped up and became a leader admired even by the enemy. So quite frankly, I have no idea if Shakespeare believes that human nature does what is most physically convenient of morally righteous. Falstaff epitomizes a man who takes the easy road out of all situations and thinks very little of being morally upstanding. However, two of his other principal characters flip flop. Does anyone have any feedback for me about this? After thinking it out, I'm at a loss for one side or the other.