Absolutely not. Value is measured by both parties, among other factors, in terms of scarcity: in the default case, food is relatively abundant and gold is relat

Absolutely not. Value is measured by both parties, among other factors, in terms of scarcity: in the default case, food is relatively abundant and gold is relatively scarce: hence the situation that a man with a mountain of gold is starving is typically extremely unlikely. Should the situation you describe ever realistically occur, then food must be so scarce that finally the old trite "you cannot eat gold" does indeed become true, and the offerer of a scrap of stale bread must in such a context and situation indeed be offering a tremendous sacrifice, which both seem to agree the gold is a cheap enough price to pay for. How's that immoral in such an extreme food-deprived and relative gold-abundant environment you're describing? I'm assuming a mutually voluntary exchange of course.