In such a enviroment there are no confines or limits in that all people can decide the outcome of their own fates.
Once you build confines and limitations hypocrisy or corruption is only inevitable.
Try looking at it from a different angle. There is a theory which is categorised under "Moral Skepticism
" by Makey. The theory is that ethical claims cannot be proven because there is no such thing as right and wrong, or at least that humans do not have such a view on the matter to make such claims.
This seems supported by the fact that all humans are subjective and that subjective values ("goals") alway seem to include personal gain in comparrison
to others. Immanuel Kant calls this the hypothetical imperative
(the "goal" being "good" is hypothetical because it cannot be proven). Kant also points towards his categorical imperative
because he argues that "good" is not the act in itself, but the intention with which the action was undertaken. If the intention is to act only in such a way that one can wish it would become a universal law (be treated in the same way) it is an action which holds no "evil" intent. In that sense it does not judge and has no subjective "goals" in it. The acts in itself are not decided upon so no "rulebase" is present which seems to confirm the moral skepticism.
Well, I for one think moral skepticism holds a lot of truth, but in order to live with others perhaps Kant's categorical imperative could offer us something. At least it leaves all acts open and therefore excludes nothing, but it does ask of anyone to evaluate ones own intentions. If you would like to debate Kant there is a whole subforum just for him