If you don't make some allowance for other people's behavior in your ethical system, your ethical strategy can easily be subverted by someone else that does.

In game theory simulations, strategies that respond to counterparty behaviors, such as tit-for-tat, always outperform those that do not, such as always-cooperate, always-reneg, and random-choice strategies.

Your strategy is apparently always-cooperate. It's a loser. If you do not penalize bad behavior or unbalanced deals, they will become more prevalent in the environment.

My strategy is not actually always-cooperate, and I don't fathom how you got that from my words.