Not that user, but I want to take up this argument.
While important to identify the existence of a discontinuity between making money and Ethics, I think that the disconnect goes beyond - is wider, deeper, more fundamentally opposed than - the comparable examples of similar disconnects.
To illustrate my point, I am happy to concede here that, as a commonplace, 'technology is non-ethical (or amoral, rather than immoral)'. To state that the aptitude of a tool does not have a formal relationship to the uses of that tool by a moral actor seems fair enough to me. In the case of making money, however, I think we pass beyond the realm of the non-ethical (or amoral) and well and truly into the sphere of the full-on no-limits unethical (or immoral).
Firstly, for a definition, when we talk about 'money-making' I should clarify that I mean 'activity conducted with a view to producing ongoing profit' not just 'obtaining money'. Picking $10 up off the street, or being given money from my relatives at a Chinese wedding, or whatever, is a process where I get some money, but it's not the kind of thing that might be unethical. Likewise, waged labour isn't 'making money' in the sense that running a small business employing several employees, or owning a factory, or starting an internet startup is 'making money'.
Now, what do I mean by the claim that making money is unethical (rather than non-ethical)? Precisely, that the act of making money is, sooner or later, going to run up against an ethical obstacle to which the only logical answer (within the logic of any system which was already powerful enough to compel us, the actor in question, to begin the process of making money) is to discard the ethic and continue to make money. The beauty of this view is that (as far as I have thought it through) it works for just about any 'ethic' or system of ethics you choose. So when I say 'ethical' above, I don't mean 'according to the Catholic ethics of Pope Francis' or 'according to secular liberal humanist ethics of Hillary Clinton' or 'according to the environmentalist ethic of Naomi Klein'. What I mean is that for anyone sufficiently dedicated to moneymaking, any time they run up against any ethical limitations of these systems, the overwhelming logic - the demand that is required IF one is to continue to make money - is to ignore the ethic.
In the examples above, this might mean to not act as a Christian, or to happily run a private prison, or to chop down a forest for profit. The end result of the moneymaking process is that, if you refuse to do any of these things and your competitors continue to do them, you will not just make less money but ultimately you will be outcompeted by your competitors, have less revenue, be unable to reinvest in your business, and ultimately go bankrupt as not just the absolute income but also the rate of profit (and your ability to obtain finance, etc.) declines to zero.