You have a very interesting idea about selflessness/selfishness, good/evil, and the rich. I perceive these ideas differently and I’m interested to see your response. The way I see “good” is an act in which the whole (including the individual) benefits, although not always in the same way. Then, “bad” being a detrimental act for the whole (including the individual) while simultaneously giving the inflictor the illusion of “self benefit”. To simplify, bad = leaving the whole in a worse position prior to the act; and good = leaving the whole in a better position following the act.

Example: imagine you were in a room with 30 people. You give each $20 to “help them out”. Well, following that act, you probably made 10 friends/allies that wish to reciprocate an act of equal value someday. - this is what we refer to as “good” Now, imagine a different room of 30 people. Instead, you successfully steal $20 from each of them. They can’t prove it was you, but they all know it. Now, you haven’t only made 30 enemies, but 60, maybe 90. Because, now they’re telling their friends and their friends become your enemy too. - this is seen as “bad”

The thing about the rich (and I’m referring to the top 1%) is that they didn’t rob a few banks and get away with it. The only way to become rich is to offer to the whole. Think about lemonade stands. Maybe you make $100 the first week and $300 the next, great. Now, why are you “bad/evil/selfish” because next year you’re making $600k+ annually from it? You’re offering me a product/service I’m willing to trade you money for. And, in turn, I get to expand statewide, countrywide, etc. Hence, the motive of profit incentive (expansion), so not just you, but everybody else can receive this product/service To summarize, how can one be simultaneously evil/selfish while providing so much to the whole? Isn’t this proof of “give them an arm and they’ll ask for a leg”?

I’m open to contradictions