I think you're deeply naive about how human ethics work. You really cannot easily judge someone else until you have walked a mile in their shoes. I see it a lot: people thinking that character is more important than circumstance, when the reverse is true the vast majority of the time. Character really counts for very little, and in any case you cannot reliably infer much from the ethics of decisions in one circumstance to predict behaviour in another circumstance, unless the circumstances are similar in ways that match the causal reasoning of the agent making the ethical choices - and that reasoning is a hidden model, requiring you to read minds to figure it out, or saving that, hanging around that person for months and years.

For example, things like jaywalking - did you know that jaywalking is statistically safer than crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing in the US, on a per-crossing basis? If you knew that, would it change your opinion of the "ethics" of someone who broke that law? Some people put staying alive at a higher premium than obeying the law. But someone who didn't know that may just think they're a jackass.

It's also easily gamed. When people have such a simplistic and naive view of ethics / morality / character, their adversaries can put on little morality plays to fool them into a false sense of trust.