The thing I always find strange in these discussions is that they seem to frame people who chase "money, power, fame, success, ego etc." as not acting ethically

The thing I always find strange in these discussions is that they seem to frame people who chase "money, power, fame, success, ego etc." as not acting ethically. It's interesting I think because all of the above have ethics in my experience. What they don't do is treat their ethics with the same sense of supremism as the vocal activists/advocates who frame everything unaligned with their view critically. And if you show even a little compromise that too gets treated as a lack of ethics in that people will at the very least view it as the money winning out over personal beliefs. The idea that someone can be legitimately ethical without being an extremist about the matter is largely unacknowledged by the vocal ethicists. But in a way that also makes sense because from their view the silence is probably just more room to criticize in the conversation.