I made no attempt to define what was good and what wasn't. It's been the source of ethical and moral debate as far back any written record of humanity can tell us. It's an existential question, a very big and complex grey area, there is no right answer when it comes to humanity.

Getting bogged down in whether a certain person is good or bad isn't damning evidence either way. People make mistakes and they mostly act in self interest. Is it a question of actions or a question of results? It could be either.

But what is often agreed on is that sacrifice is the basis of all good. And being a good person by your own standards is what is relatively best for the world, it's net gain of goodness at least we can be certain in that circumstance. You could do nothing all your life and do no harm, or you can do bit of good for the world and somebody somewhere could benefit from your self-imposed loss.

My only point is that without empathy choices are arbitrary or made solely in self interest. When it's your job to make those choices for the good of everyone then you'd want the exact opposite. It doesn't mean indecisiveness or not acting at all because it harms some people. It's the means to weigh both the bad and good and make the best decision within your ability as a human being. If there is loss, that should be felt, if there is an imposed sacrifice on others it should be at least acknowledged.

Doing the best you can for people is important, without getting bogged down in the minor details of every persons life and the semantics of the situation. It's still a hard thing to do, it's much easier to ignore it, which is why I have no respect for that sort of thinking. Anybody can do it, they choose not too.