The Heroes of Capitalism

[TMA_1]

lol. I must admit that you are right.

*silent whisper*

damn you acriku!

hehe ;)

[emprworm]

"a good person, who was rich would give all he had and only spend on what he needed for food and shelter."

agreed.

And here is how I define a bad person:

a bad person, who was greedy, would mandate that the government syphon all everyone else has by force and get a piece of someone else's pie....a pie that he did not bake.

[Inoculator9]

I'll point out TMA, that it could have been a good "Jewish" guy or a good "Muslim" guy that acts that way.

[Dante]

What if by being a 'bad' person someone saved their country (i.e. from economic disaster), even though people were miserable? Would they be bad because of miserable people or good for preserving their country to help the people later?

[Edric O]

"a good person, who was rich would give all he had and only spend on what he needed for food and shelter."

agreed.

Good. Now let's apply a little logical reasoning.

You do agree that evil is the opposite of good, yes? Thus, if a good person does action X, an evil person will do non-X.

Now, you also agree that a good person, if he/she were rich, would "give all he had and only spend on what he needed for food and shelter". Therefore, an evil person would do the opposite of that. An evil person, if he/she were rich, would give nothing to the poor and keep all his/her money to spend it on extravagant luxuries and a life of opulence.

In conclusion, all the people on that list of billionaires are indeed evil, by your own definition.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Acriku]

An evil person is not bound by what a good person would do. An evil person could give to charities, and torture little children in the shack.

[Edric O]

Of course. There are more ways to be evil than the one I just described. But for every evil action, there is an opposite, which is a good action. And vice versa.