So if you gain lots of money via semi nefarious means what fraction do you have to dedicate to good works before the earlier wrong is cancelled?
I know that he didn't gas 6 million people but letting people buy their way out of moral debt with a fraction of the money they gained still seems horribly repugnant.
First, what moral debt? Second, I imagine the sum total of his humanitarian efforts are greater than the total charity if all of those dollars remained in the pockets of each person who bought windows 95 et al. So repugnant seems like a real stretch.
I know that he didn't gas 6 million people but letting people buy their way out of moral debt with a fraction of the money they gained still seems horribly repugnant.