My point is that it doesn't matter how slippery the underlying words are, because you're not meant to piece together the meaning of the statement from those words --- or rather, you are, but deceptively, by attributing them to the policy preferences of the people who coined the term.
Logomachy aside: "ethical hacking" was a term invented by huge companies in the 1990s to co-opt security research, which was at the time largely driven by small independent firms. You didn't want to engage just anybody, the logic went, because lots of those people were secretly criminals. No, you wanted an "ethical hacker" (later: a certified ethical hacker), who you could trust not to commit crimes while working for you.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is, and can be, such a thing as "ethical hacking," but perhaps it's not coterminous what vendors and others might claim it to be. The meanings of words evolve over time, sometimes for the worse (cough "literally"), and sometimes for the better. Groups have also reclaimed derogatory words through concerted action.
It's a complicated human activity, so of course there are ethics to it. But I'd strongly recommend not using the words "ethical hacker" next to each other, because that term has more meaning than you probably intend.
Logomachy aside: "ethical hacking" was a term invented by huge companies in the 1990s to co-opt security research, which was at the time largely driven by small independent firms. You didn't want to engage just anybody, the logic went, because lots of those people were secretly criminals. No, you wanted an "ethical hacker" (later: a certified ethical hacker), who you could trust not to commit crimes while working for you.