...certain kinds of post-processing are unethical, even it can be utterly aesthetic (pleasing).
Well - yes, but only if and when when someone else sees the image and is deceived by it. Let me try to simplify.
1. Nothing I do to my own images with my own copy of photoshop in my own home can ever be unethical because it is deceitful. There is no-one there to be deceived. It may of course be inept, etcetera, but that is a different matter.
2. Once I show the image to even one other person, the possibility
of deceit arises, in relation to pretty much all post-processing, including, I suggest, the versions of it that you and others on your side of the argument happen to be comfortable with. If the viewer doesn't understand that, and how, the image has been altered, and you are in any way complicit in that "misunderstanding", you are being unethical. This applies as much to dodging and burning as it does to large-scale cloning.
3. The difficulty arises in relation to how and when photographers might be complicit in such misunderstandings, or, to put it differently, what it is reasonable to assume in relation to published photographs not subject to explicit special conditions such as in photojournalism or competitions. I would want to know what people actually assume, and would guess that they do see a difference between dodging and burning (no surprise finding out it has happened) and large-scale cloning (feeling conned).
4. To summarise - postprocessing to deceive is unethical, but if the viewer knows exactly what you have done, the only judgement left for them to make is aesthetic.