For instance I know some lawyers and insurance CEOs who built the company themselves and run an ethical business model but because of innovation have made a ton of money. One lawyer has made a name for himself only defending those who have been hurt my big corporations and their life is ruined. The other made an insurance model that helps these hurt people invest their court winnings into annuities to guarantee they’re financially taken care of for life. These are not billionaires but both companies have won for their clients/work with hundreds of millions if not billions.
How can one clearly define someone like Musk or Bezos as bourgeois whereas these hard working individuals who came from nothing and build a huge business actually from nothing and help people?
Hoping for a non-black and white answer. My local MLM group declares everyone evil who isn’t their exact ideology. It doesn’t make sense to apply this thinking when someone whose become rich through helping people isn’t the same as someone whose has taken advantage of people for generations.
Edit: getting downvoted to hell when I am asking a question sure isn't welcoming.
It sounds like the people you've used as an example certainly try to do good.
I think an issue here is that "ethical" and "unethical" as value judgements operate on many different levels and just because someone does something considered one or the other, it doesn't necessarily mean they are wholly bad or good.
Providing services aimed at helping poor and marginalized people? I'd argue that's ethical.
Accumulating wealth? I'd argue that's unethical, whether it's by doing something helpful or harmful: as another commenter pointed out, it's a zero-sum game and keeping more for yourself means there is less for others.
I don't think the people you described are bad people; they're doing something philanthropic within an unethical system.
Thanks for that well written response. That is very helpful!