Man this is really interesting and I imagine that it can go a lot of ways.
I guess a person who's willing to do anything and everything without remorse if given an adequate incentive would hold advantage over a man who binds himself to a set of principles and creates clear boundaries as to what he would and would not do. But then there's the point that taking advantage of such incentives could result in unwanted repercussions. Then what each person wants out of life has to be considered, some have pursuits that don't revolve around social power.
Also, not matter which way you swing it morality is beneficial, if it wasn't it would've been phased out long ago. In fact morality benefits the immoral in many ways. If you're up against someone fighting fair while you're willing to play dirty you'll have an edge, but if everyone fought dirty your edge is gone.
Also, a stronger person would have a better chance of adhering to their morals than a weaker person. If you're weak you're likely to go against what you believe is right because it's necessary, or because you believe it's necessary. Out of self-preservation you're not going to want to take chances, or you'll simply be influenced by those more powerful and do things that go against your beliefs in your vie for power. On the other hand, someone at the very top that's secure in their position has less to be fearful of and because of that can take the liberty of adhering to their principles.
At the end of the day whatever floats your boat. If reaping the rewards of immorality (Or amorality if you've convinced yourself that what you're doing isn't wrong on some level) then power to you.
Similarly if you choose to live your life by some moral code, then good for you too.
Though at the end of the day someone who manages to stick to their moral code is probably going to gain more of my respect than someone who chooses to live by none.
But on the flip side, I'd rather have someone who chooses to live by no moral code as an acquaintance than someone who pretends to champion morality yet constantly violates it.
This reminds me of the saying 'Mercy is for the weak', which I kind of disagree with.
If I'm weak I'm going to crush my opposition if given the opportunity because it's better to remove a threat now while I have the chance than to let it go and potentially allow it to grow into an even stronger force. That, and destroying my competition makes a statement, a statement that can help to deter future challenges and keep others in line.
If I'm strong and secure in my position then I have nothing to fear. Let it grow, let if fester, if it comes back I'll crush it then. Statements? No need, I'm strong, I have no need to prove it, my stature speaks for itself, I don't need showmanship, nor do I need airs of power to be strong.
But I guess you could argue otherwise. Such as without having done the prior a few times it's unlikely you'll end up in a position where you can comfortably adhere to the latter.
