Is anti-concurrent cause language 'unethical'?

I saw this question discussed at a recent post on Sam Friedman's blog at National Underwriter. Plenty of comment by readers, both pro and con. You might be able to predict what I think. The question itself arises from a misconception of what anti-concurrent cause language is and what it addresses -- in other words, I don't believe the question makes sense. Is the notion of exclusions in insurance policies unethical? Is the notion of covering collapse but defining collapse extremely narrowly, and excluding many causes of collapse, unethical? Is it unethical to define a policy's coverage as excess to any other available insurance? Is it unethical to define ongoing property damage as uncovered if any part of it began before the policy period commenced? Is it unethical to define an inte