Life is always a prisoner's dilemma. The real societal "choice" is which equilibrium we pick. There are only two, and one of them is significantly better. The problem, of course, is that indicidual defectors gain advantage in the cooperate-cooperate equilibrium. If they aren't dealt with quickly and meaningfully, then society quickly devolves into the other equilibrium. So really the "choice" is distributed across institutional leadership as a combination of rules and enforcement. It can tolerate some unethical choices, but not many, and not over a long period of time. I wish leaders would understand (or care about) the "environmental damage" their unethical decisions do to society at large.

Personally, I blame Citizens United for doing the most damage. Because of that horrendous decision, our information space has been flooded with paid-for advocacy and sophistry of the most pernicious sort. It's like we live in an always-on disgusting court battle between two cynical, unethical lawyers willing to say or do anything to "get" the other side. There isn't sufficient reputational damage attached to this behavior, and the result is an increasingly cynical, unethical public convinced that's the only reality there is. It is utterly tragic what we have lost in so short a time.