Being asocial myself, the aversion described comes across as an outcome of societal pressures, rather than any sort of innate characteristic. I still voluntarily adhere to the principles intended by it, but without ever feeling the aversion that typical vulnerability to social pressures confers. So, yes, I do agree that aversion holds true in some social environments — but not all. If one constructs a theoretical culture where lying to, conning, and stealing from outsiders is ethically neutral, then the opposite becomes true: courage is only required to steal a candy bar from an insider, else it’s ethically neutral and courage is not required. This isn’t a thought experiment; such cultures do exist within the United States and have numerous adherents both in U.S. politics and at home. One of the controversies around cheating on homework is whether it’s cheating or not; if a degree ultimately earned fraudulently is only used to exploit outsiders — e.g. including faceless corporate and government non-person entities — then it is not necessarily cheating under an “insiders-only” ethical framework at all. The threats of such frameworks are many and various, but right at the top of the list is “ethical concerns are only applicable to in-group members”, which neatly sidesteps the courage otherwise required to take advantage of a professor, college, etc. Thus the controversy: to say that “cheating is wrong” assumes not only that cheating is “wrong”, but that the ethical concerns implied by the label “cheating” are even applicable at all. Unfortunately, colleges tend not to engage at that level with students (other than those that self-select into philosophy!), and so punitive-only efforts are ineffective at shifting the underlying cultural issues.