I prefer to work with people that resolve ethical questions ethically, not based on who benefits (or loses).
So what you really mean is:
"I prefer to work with people that resolve ethical questions according to my personal, subjective ethical standards."
It's not like ethics is some simple, black and white thing, where every question has an obvious "right" and "wrong" (or "good" and "bad" ) answer. If ethics weren't subject to debate and controversy and analysis, the field would have become completely stagnant centuries ago, with no new philosophical work being produced.
There's quite a bit of debate and philosophy on moral relativism, too. Which is the rhetorical baseball bat you're trying to apply here.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/uv/ends_dont_justify_means_among_hum...
E.g. your reasoning would call Robin Hood evil. My conscience would call Robin Hood good. A full game-tree analysis would require investigating whether wealth concentration is good or bad for the tech progress that will cause the Singularity.