I love the formula you pose for thinking about this, and it's so true. Ethical behavior is binary, and a lack of ethical behavior isn't compartmentalized into one small area.
My moral system is so incredibly far away from viewing ethical behavior as binary that I can not relate to how someone would think that way. How do you place the line, where an instance of behavior you don't agree with makes you view someone as not ethical?
When you come from a place of privilege, it's easy to think human behavior is binary.
For example, I would never steal a car! I can afford one, and to be quite honest, I don't need one.
If I was deep into poverty, and needed a car for a job or to be able to provide some function to my family, that temptation might be there. It might be so great that it distorts the ethics of the person so much so they don't see it as unethical.
Instead of stealing a car, they're borrowing it or the other person can just get another one. They would legitimately not see wrong because they feel like they have been wronged when they do not have the ability to get a car.
TL;DR: Ethics are not binary. To even suggest that undermines the entirety of the philosophy dedicated to studying it.
Except you're still acting immorally by forcing your belief system onto others who don't share that belief system. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in property; the person who owned that car does.
When you grow up in an ivory tower so you never have to make hard choices, you have no frame of reference as to the chain of decisions that lets someone commit an "immoral" act.
I put it in quotes, because in the real world morality is subjective, despite what the privileged hackers in this thread will tell you with formulas.
It's easy to make ethics binary when you just stop at what is legal and isn't. If you're the kind to jay walk because you know there's no car so it doesn't matter your ethics are probably a lot more nuanced though.
