Foucault was a Nietzschean and he saw his work as a tool for others to use in their own projects. He looked at what happened to Marx, with Marxists turning to stuff he wrote as some authoritative guide for every question in life, and didn't want to end up imposing positions on his readers. Foucault drew a line between morality and ethics, and in the latter he was effectively a Nietzschean obsessed with self-creation, the body as a work of art, creativity etc. When questions of right and wrong come up, his strategy was to question the distinction. Why are these things considered right and wrong? Whose interests does that sense of morality serve? How does it obstruct an ethics of self-creation?
Foucault wasn't amoral (that he believed in nothing) otherwise he wouldn't have spent half his time on picket lines. In his interviews, he would say stuff like "rape should clearly be wrong" etc. but doesn't properly justify those claims. His smarter critics accused his ethics of being incoherent and narcissistic. There's a contradiction in Foucault between his obsession with caring for the self, creating new ways of being, pleasure etc. and the darker side where he's all about how a person's sense of self is always shaped by power and people are worse than puppets.
>>734832Chomskly was an MIT professor and like all celebrity professors he has to get funding to keep his university department afloat and fund the research. Its not uncommon for people like that to go beg rich people for money in exchange for a library or building named after them or some vanity project like that. Its what all universities do.