I prefer to work with people that resolve ethical questions ethically
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.
This is a simple 'black and white' ethical case. He didn't have approval for the services and resources he consumed, he knew it was wrong (he purposefully avoided security), and he could have resolved any "gray area" at any time by simply asking permission. QED.
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.
This is far from black and white. The question of to what extent to allow "the ends" (his educational startup) to justify "the means" is one of multi-player game theory and is far from resolved:
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.
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.