It seems if one were to listen to those social experts, all of society would become a game of incentives and disincentives where the goal is finding the mismatc

It seems if one were to listen to those social experts, all of society would become a game of incentives and disincentives where the goal is finding the mismatched pairs (i.e. action where incentive outweighs disincentive, regardless of what the action is - whether it be walking away from a mortgage or robbing a store). In that scheme ethics (and morality - I don't think there's a difference) become purely relative, because value is an inherently relative concept. Not being a moral relativist, I naturally disagree with the idea that such a society is desirable or that ethics in that case are even meaningful at all. :) Which is one of the things that disturbs me about the idea of an action being ethical just because it's defined in a contract.