In the context of the seeding system in place this year and the scenario described in the original post, I maintain, as I stated in my initial post that for me personally the choice is clear - I play to win every match.
When the seeding criteria create the motivation to score for your opponent in certain situations; then, I also have no problem. Aim High was a good example of that scenario.
When the seeding criteria create the motivation to cooperate with opponents to control the outcome of the match and it is in everyone's best interest to play, for example 6v0, well I would not criticize teams for pursuing that strategy. It never came up for me that year; if approached by all five other teams, I probably would have cooperated and still slept well that night
I could imagine a scenario where losing their last match would put a team in a better position for alliance selection without impacting the ranking of alliance partners or opponents. If I were clever enough to recognize it in the first place, I want to believe that I would not support such strategy by our team. I hope that we would play to win. That would be a personal choice based on my value system. I also would not criticize another who made a different choice. While I would strongly lobby against it, if that was the consensus of my team, I could support it. Under no circumstances would I accept a "bribe" as it were to throw a match.