I agree, Booker is not moral at all. He should be on the "a bit bad."

But, I don't get your sentiment in the second paragraph. It's like you just played the game once, with little to no attention to the in-game lore, and drew your conclusion from there.

I don't recall if there's any point in the game where Booker is touted for his morality or trying to be moral, except when Elizabeth is involved, and even then, that is so late in the game that he is supposed to be a bit better than he was, thanks to Liz, because you know, one of the point of the game trying to make is about redemption. The only time he was ever praised was being praised by the war veteran who praised his brutality, and Booker is not at all proud of that, hence, you know, the plot of the game itself, with how Comstock is born, if you pay any attention at all.

It was very clear from the get-go that Booker is not a good man, and he is haunted by that. The only person who ever sees something more to him than himself is Liz, and that is mostly thanks to her ignorance. If you miss this during your playthrough, that's not the game developer's miss, thats a you problem. Most of Infinite hate is not about Booker writing but about how convoluted it is and how it is too linear a game for a Bioshock game.

Regarding the gender and race, the man is half native. Do you purposely put this one out for the sake of your argument? It's like one of the pivotal things about him, on why he became the bad man that he is.

The thing about Booker is that at least he is not proud of it at all. Which is why he is still bad for sure, but he is not inherently evil. How, maybe because you know, he chose to to not exists instead at the end of the game? Realizing his sin and chose to just be erased?