You don't share food if you're starving. You don't share time if you work 12 hour days, every day.

If you spend all your energy on survival, you got no energy to spare on anyone else. I bet our hypothetical starving person would be moral and share, if they had the chance and materials.

If they don't... then it's not a matter of won't it's can't. People are more likely to share food they have excess of, time they have excess of. If they can't spare it, they won't.

I believe what dukeofdummies is saying, is that people with a financial cushion have fewer obstacles to acting on ethical principle, whereas your average person living pay check to pay check will be more cautious about whistleblowing because the consequences (loss of employment, vexatious lawsuits, blacklisting) will be felt more severely. Moreso if they have a family to support.

I consider myself to be ethical, but i live in a wage economy. If i see behaviour which needs to be reported, but i believe that the organisation/society will punish me for speaking out, i will wait until I've secured an alternative livelihood or am relatively safer before blowing the whistle.

I’m still stuck on why you think someone with money has more ethics

That is a misreading/misinterpretation of the original statement.