I used to think more in the mode of your "First" perspective. Yet the more of the world I see, the more I come to believe that in a majority of important life s

I used to think more in the mode of your "First" perspective. Yet the more of the world I see, the more I come to believe that in a majority of important life situations (in the US at least) acting in an unethical manner is a strictly winning strategy (from a game theory perspective, in that it trumps all possible other strategies). Not that I'm using that as an argument to be an unethical person. But I am saying I feel it's a justification to act in a more Rooseveltian realpolitik manner: treat someone ethically until they demonstrate a lack of ethics. And even then, strive to conduct oneself to a higher standard, but firstly protect yourself and your aims at all times. Most unethical behavior seems advantageously predicated on others' ignoring / accepting it. To the contrary, confront it! And win! To your second point, granted with a caveat. The "freedom to turn down a job" is a freedom many aren't afforded (and I daresay most don't have the benefit of affording at least once in their lives). Saying "Yes, but we have better, more ethical alternatives" feels elitist and... inapplicable to the average working person. So yes, while most people commenting here may have that option, there are a huge number that don't. (Hence why non-competes should be ruled unconstitutional)