I don’t see how donating it is any less morally wrong. Between what he did and what you propose, both involve using the money to fix the same problem. The difference is just
whether he provides the services himself or someone else does and
whether we fix it through prevention or treatment after the fact.
Bills that go towards the goal of keeping someone alive. That someone being either a person who helps victims of conversation therapy through an organization, or a person doing the same thing independently. What makes the former more deserving of compensation for their work than the latter?
It sure is better, but still an unnecessary evil. He should have donated the money to conversion therapy victims or gave it all to the kid.
You are saying as if stealing the money is inseparable from the good deed he did. He could do it without also helping himself to the money.
I don’t see how donating it is any less morally wrong. Between what he did and what you propose, both involve using the money to fix the same problem. The difference is just
How are both using the money to fix the same problem? The $700 was spent on random bills as far as we know. Not to help more kids.
And what happens when you donate the money? It’s used to pay some other dude’s wages, which then goes towards their bills.
Bills which go towards some goal if you donate it to a charity.
Bills that go towards the goal of keeping someone alive. That someone being either a person who helps victims of conversation therapy through an organization, or a person doing the same thing independently. What makes the former more deserving of compensation for their work than the latter?
Both are deserving of compensation. Both shouldn’t get to decide who’s money they take in secret as a means of getting it.