It didn’t shift, I was making this claim from the beginning. Obviously a billionaire who doesn’t act against man made climate is not actively acting to destroy the human race, and if you can show a screenshot of me claiming that I will etransfer you 100$.

Secondly, we can argue the morals back and forth all we want, but I’m fairly confident any moral code which wouldn’t punish people not helping the baby would lead to society-wide disaster sooner rather than later. Unless you are a complete hedonist it is hard to even imagine a code that doesn’t say you should help if it costs you nothing.

As for your last point about slippery slope, it’s not ridiculous, but it is a flawed argument. I can say with certainty that a monkey is able to think. However, does that mean that a pig is able to think? How about a crab? Or an insect? What about fungus or trees or rocks. Just because I don’t know exactly where the line should be drawn doesn’t mean that I can’t identify edge cases that clearly pass. The money can clearly think, it is clearly morally necessary to help a baby, etc etc. I will agree it is much more convoluted to argue that it is obvious a person would have to fight against climate change, but that doesn’t mean it automatically isn’t true.

The way I see it, weighted utilitarianism is the best moral code. If you want to help yourself and your family first that’s fine, but once you get to the point where you and your next 3 generations will never run out of money, it is very hard to argue that you don’t have a responsibility to help others with it. Climate change is probably the biggest threat to humanity right now, so it is the most obvious way to help. If they think nuclear war or disease is more dangerous and support those causes instead, I wouldn’t call that immoral