I don't think it's dishonest unless you lie about the condition of the shoes. If the SA is aware, how is it dishonest?
I don't want to be contentious, but that "personal responsibility" argument is rather judgmental--even if you're saying you're not judging--because, well, you are. You're essentially saying that those who take advantage of this policy are being irresponsible. This is true in some cases but not all. I'd venture to guess that it isn't true in the vast majority of cases.
Personally, I do not return shoes because I just decide they are not cute enough, or the style isn't "in" anymore. If they do not perform the function I need them to, I need my money back so I can find something else that does.
Those Stuart Weitzman boots were $349 and $595 full price. They absolutely destroyed my heels on the first wear out of the house. I wore them around the house with no problem, but I just cannot tell how shoes will wear until I put them through a real day out. I just can't. I don't walk around the house the way I would outside, on concrete. My slippers are comfortable around the house, but they are not comfortable outside. It's just not a reliable indicator. The only reason I do it at all is to make sure there are no glaring comfort issues, but some things aren't detectable until after a few hours of vigorous walking.
If you're telling me I should have just sucked it up and taken a $349 hit for boots that left my socks soaked in blood, sorry, but there is just no way I would agree. $349 is a drop in the pond for Nordstrom, especially considering they will easily re-sell the boots at the Rack or Last Chance. For me it's a tremendous loss. In the end, they didn't lose much, because I got a replacement pair of boots from them shortly thereafter.
Clearly Nordstrom has constructed a business model wherein an open return policy works in their favor. I would say it is highly likely that they ultimately make MORE sales because of this. I never used to shop there, but now I do, because I know I have that security. They won a lot of loyal customers because of their service and policies. The number of things I return used is minuscule compared to the number of things I keep (and/or return in unused condition), and I suspect the same is true for most shoppers (and let's remember that not everyone or even most people who shop there are even aware of their return policies anyway).
If people who "take advantage" are responsible for retailers restricting their return policies, what difference would it make? What's the point of an open return policy if no one ever used it? They may as well restrict it either way.
So Anna, back to your dilemma, I think stretching will help, but if not, I wouldn't sweat it. Someone else is will be very happy to find those boots at a discount, and no one at Nordstrom will lose their job over it.