No, they're both very short term wins for companies, which means they might happen anyway. Cloudflare has demonstrated ethical behaviour so far, but that's not enough to trust a single part with the internet.
Short of the new age web3 stuff, though, not sure what else is a suitable alternative. Competitors to Cloudflare aren't as common because of their gigantic moat — imagine building an org that builds out to hundreds of cities around the world and partners with thousands of network companies.
Definitions of ethical may differ. Shielding far-right sites, cesspits like Kiwi Farms which make it their stated goal to drive people they don't like to suicide, criminals like DDOS vendors, credit card fraud forums, etc. all under the guise of being a "neutral passthrough layer third party" feels incredibly disingenuous to me. The aforementioned people are Cloudflare's customers and Cloudflare hosts their content (yes, sometimes with a short ttl, but the public IP address still terminates at their web servers). They can not be afforded the same leeway that actual internet exchanges are when routing traffic to bad actors.
So no. They may have demonstrated business-friendly behaviour. But ethical? No.
Yes, but my point is that they are by definition not neutral, contrary to what they claim. They get to choose who they do business with and their choices are not ethical.
You should consider them a hosting company, would you consider a hosting company an ethical company if they hosted nazi forums?
With some strawmanning by this definition sleeping is not neutral as I could fight for a cause, or healthcare is not neutral as you might save a nazi's life.
Or, to draw it further into the scale you mention, a single-party replacement for the internet.
Neither of these things sound like a long-term win.