Moral superiority
They frame every business decision as ethical and imply that those who disagree are compromised.
Rule out first
Real ethical breaches they're right to name. Different moral priorities rather than superiority. A role, such as compliance, whose job is to say no.
What could explain it
Moral foundations: They weigh different values (care, fairness, loyalty, liberty), and can explain yours fairly once asked.
Moralisation: Ordinary preferences become moral issues; there's no way to disagree without being bad.
Communal narcissism: Their goodness is what makes them special; they need to be seen as the most ethical person in the room.
Reaction formation: Their outrage is strongest about what they're privately drawn to; the purity is a defence.
Moral licensing: Past good deeds become permission for bad ones; they're righteous in public and lax in private.
Master and slave morality (Nietzsche): Their virtues line up exactly with their constraints (modesty from the overlooked, frugality from the underpaid), and goodness is defined mainly by what the stronger party isn't. Asked what they're for, they describe what they're against.
A next move
Ask them to make the best case for the other side. A fair version means a values difference; refusal points to moralisation or narcissism; check whether their private conduct matches.
If it’s you
Where does my sense of being right protect me from feeling something else?