On some level things have to get worse before there's willpower to make progress toward a solution.

I worked with less than 100 clients over the course of two years. My impact was statistically insignificant.

No single raindrop believes that it's responsible for the flood.

Statistics don't enter into it. Whether something is morally wrong or right is intrinsic to the act itself, not based on what other people are doing. If everyone in the world starts stealing from stores, that doesn't mean it is OK for you to start stealing as well.

Okay, so you're into the deontological line of thinking. I'm not. The fact that you think your approach to morality is the default just suggests that you haven't actually had a meaningful engagement with current literature on moral reasoning.

My argument is "if everyone in the world is doing something immoral, it is still immoral for you to do it," which works equally well in consequentialism. The fact that your actions are statistically insignificant compared to the whole only means that the immorality/morality of your individual actions are small compared to the whole of humanity. That's a false comparison, I'm not aware of any ethical system that determines morality by comparing your impact against the totality of humanity. Maybe comparing your impact against the impact of the average person, but not the total. Under such a system only the Hitlers and Ghandis of the world would even register.

Morality isn't anymore intrinsic than the concept of good and evil. My mother thinks the Catholic faith is inherently evil, but Catholics will fight to the death for their belief that it is inherently good. Who's right? Probably neither of these people-- the question is irrelevant and not useful. Morality isn't determined by any absolute truth. Morality is only useful when the majority agree with it and the outcome of that belief helps the group in context. Over time, the group changes along with the majority opinion, and morality changes to suit the needs of the group in flux.

Stealing is usually harmful to any group, which is why we haven't seen any real change in how we look at stealing. Cheating, however, is undergoing change. What is a hacker if he is not a cheater? We have jobs for hackers now-- it's called penetration testing. An increasing number of people see many of our dominant systems as being flawed-- thus, an increasing number of people may begin to cheat the systems to get where they need to go. This is important because if those systems want to exist, they either need to change or they need to be more secure. You will see moral opinions change along with this entropic state until an equilibrium is reached which will continue for some period of time until another relevant variable changes.

I just want to offer some terms from ethics that match your perspectives. You or anyone else can read up on them if you’d like.

> Morality is only useful when the majority agree with it...

This sounds a lot like a moral relativist stance. I hear it’s not a very popular stance among ethicists, so I don’t have any recommendations off the top of my head for philosophers to study. Basically moral relativism just means that morality is defined by the standards of a culture.

> Morality is only useful when ... the outcome of that belief helps the group in context.

This sounds similar to what a utilitarian would believe. They focus more on the result of an action and the sum total happiness it creates and they judge higher sum total happiness to be of higher morality. John Stuart Mill is probably the biggest proponent of utilitarianism.