Those are not mutually exclusive. He certainly cared about the moral dimension, but it was never a priority. He always introduced as much of his moral dimension as possible, which is what he deserves credit for.
But again - that's a pragmatic thing to do. He'd never let it ruin good business. In fact, quite the opposite is true - he did embrace it if it was good business.
Well, they are contraries as you present it, and they aren't mutually exclusive only insofar as someone is being inconsistent. "Pragmatic" usually means someone who doesn't act on principle, who is willing to be inconsistent to satisfy his desires, etc.
I don't know if I can prove it but I think the moral had priority for Steve. This can be seen most clearly in his anger in certain cases (like the Gizmodo phone theft, or his view that Android was intellectual theft), in which he stated explicitly that he would rather act on principle rather than do the pragmatic thing, e.g. (paraphrasing) "I would rather give up the company than let them get away with this." But it can also be seen in other cases as well.
I think he was unusually consistent and principled, but with an unusual conception about what is morally right. I don't think he saw making money as pragmatic and bringing technology to the masses as moral, for example. I think he saw shaping the world according to his vision as moral, and thought both money and technology played an important role in that.
I go by the wiktionary definition here: "Practical, concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice, not just theory". To me, "pragmatic" does not carry any negative connotation.
Say for instance when Apple changed to greener manufacturing technology. They didn't do that outright, in fact, it took long years of public scrutiny to tip the scales to a direction where selling "green" technology was actually a smart business decision. In a way, they had to play the game that way and they often do - by keeping their position undefined until there is an opportunity to make a big statement to differentiate themselves. Now, other companies making similar pledges carry no meaning anymore.
I don't think that the "intellectual theft" in terms of Android really amounts to much but hot air to please stockholders. The facts certainly do not justify his anger. Over all the years, Apple has had to suffer a very basic issue - they do existing things, just a lot more refined. (To me, most of Apples innovation is in how they sell technology, not in what it is or does.) There is tons of prior art that they built upon themselves and being that outraged by the case of android following in their footsteps is simply not logical.
Like any salesman, Mr. Jobs did not like to show his cards, as there is always a necessary amount of building-on-sand-near-water, when you create theater like he did to sell his products. And I believe that's also the reason why he was so enraged by the Gizmodo phone theft. Not because his morals were hurt. It was that people messed with his game.
I also don't think that he saw "bringing technology to the masses" as moral, but it sure is a good way to sell technology. His beliefs about empowering people with technology may or may not have been important to him, but he sure selected them and portrayed them as means to a certain end.
So yes, maybe we only differ on our definition of pragmatic. I agree that his big thing was following his vision, but I maintain that to realize that vision, he had to make a lot of very pragmatic decisions. Turning his "inspired" hacker youth into a walled-garden adulthood is a sign of that to me.
