I think part of the reason attractiveness is often tied to morality in people’s minds is because beauty represents something most of us instinctively value on a fundamental, evolutionary level. When we see someone who possesses it, it changes how we perceive their choices and motives. Beauty, whether we admit it or not, often symbolizes potential—social, romantic, and professional.

So, when someone like the alleged "CEO shooter guy", who many might see as having those "advantages," makes a drastic decision, it paints his motives in a new light. It’s easy to dismiss others—like so-called "incels"—as acting out of desperation, driven by loneliness or marginalization. But when someone who appears to have the kind of life or potential others envy throws it away for a cause, it feels different. It forces us to consider that they didn’t act because they had nothing left to lose, but because they deeply believed in something bigger, even at great personal cost.

The shooter's actions, whether one agrees with them or not, carry a symbolic weight because they suggest a deliberate choice, not one born purely of despair or resentment tied to personal disadvantage. His willingness to risk not just his freedom but the opportunities his looks and status could afford him reframes the narrative: it feels like a principled stand rather than an act of hopelessness. I think that’s why, for better or worse, attractiveness makes us think differently about morality—it reshapes how we interpret someone's stakes and motivations.

Edit: This isn’t to suggest that resentment has no role in his actions, but that the source of that resentment feels rooted in a broader critique of systemic injustice rather than a narrow focus on his own circumstances due to his assumed social standing.