My Problem With Bioshock's Morality System

Expect to hear "Bioshock" whenever someone brings up morality in video games and for good reason. The dystopian world of Bioshock is built on tough, provocative ideas that are both political and philosophical in nature. The unique and incredibly immersive setting of the underwater city of Rapture served as the backdrop to a story that asked fundamental questions about what it meant to be human, questions that its haunting, chilling atmosphere made sure you won't soon forget. It was one question in particular that was the core of the morality struggle in Bioshock. One that is simultaneously remarkably simple and infinitely complex - as well as deeply flawed.

What little is left of Rapture centers around these adorable, yet frightening little girls, known as Little Sisters. Their primary job is to harvest ADAM - a remarkable scientific breakthrough, extracted from a unique specie of sea slugs, that allowed people to alter its DNA in just about every way they saw fit, the most popular choice being in order to receive superpowers, known as plasmids, such as telekinesis, pyrokinesis, launching-a-swarm-of-killer-hornets-out-of-my-arm-esis etc. The downside is that excessive use of ADAM and plasmids can have horrible consequences to the body and mind, turning most of the citizens of Rapture into disfigured, psychotic junkies known as splicers. Through some generic tampering, the Little Sisters themselves have been fused with the aforementioned sea slugs, which means that their bodies also produce ADAM, thus making them the primary target of just about every single splicer in Rapture. To get to them though, one must first deal with her protector, the ferocious metal giant known as the Big Daddy, who doesn't take kindly to anyone trying to take his Little Sister away. Once he is defeated, which is no easy feat, the player is presented with the fateful choice that defines the morality system of Bioshock - will he harvest or rescue the Little Sister? Harvesting her involves extracting the slug from her body, thus receiving the maximum amount of ADAM, but also killing the girl in the process. Rescuing her, meanwhile, turns her back into a regular girl, but yields a much smaller amount of ADAM in return. Which is it going to be? Will you selfishly take as much ADAM as you can to improve your own chances of survival, or will you do everything in your power to help these girls, even though that would make your own struggle all the more difficult?
It's a brilliant moral conundrum that works especially well within the context of the game. In a game, a choice like this directly affects your experience as player. There are consequences to your decision that extend beyond the story. Would you be as eager to save the Little Sisters if you know it will make it harder for you to finish the game? Simple and straight to the point.
The first time you are presented with this choice remains one of the most memorable sequences in video game history. It's a tense, emotionally charged moment, as you slowly approach a helpless Little Sister and she backs against a wall, clearly frightened and not knowing what to expect from you. Naturally, I rescued her and all the other Little Sisters I encountered. As I mentioned in previous posts, I tend to stick to the high ground in video games. This is partially because I know that almost all games with a morality system accept the "good" ending as canon to the story, while the "bad" or "dark" ending is usually presented as a "What if?" scenario that doesn't come back in later sequels (the most notable and fun exception was The Ultimate Sith Edition of The Force Unleashed, where you got to kill Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi in an alternative storyline - man, was that satisfying in a remarkably twisted way). Mainly I stick with the "good" choice, because I do strive to be a good person, so I guess I consider being that person in games as decent practice. Anyway, as I was saying, I rescued the Little Sister and planned to save all the rest, accepting the fact it would make the game much more challenging, forcing to strategically choose from a limited amount of plasmids I could acquire - or so I thought.
In the very next level, once I saved a few more Little Sisters, I received a notification that, out of gratitude, they've left me a present. What was in that present?

You get to keep the teddy too, I imagine

 A bunch of ADAM and even some weapons and plasmids. Well then. Way to make the complex morality struggle entirely pointless. Rewarding the player with ADAM and plasmids for being kind to the Little Sisters happens throughout the entire game and it makes sense, but it also completely negates any semblance of a moral dilemma. If saving the Little Sisters gets you just about as much ADAM as harvesting them, as well as leads to the canon ending to the story, the player suddenly has no reason to even consider harvesting Little Sisters, unless he simply wants to be a jerk. The core morality struggle of the game is now a no-brainer.
This is something that bugs me to this day about Bioshock. Sure, the first time you made that choice it was handled beautifully, but that's about it. Wouldn't it have been truly amazing to have to face the same choice over and over throughout the course of the game, constantly wondering if you have enough ADAM to get by, or if you need to harvest the next Little Sister simply to survive? I think it would have. Sadly, it's not what they went with and to this day, it's the only thing I actively dislike about an otherwise spectacular game.