I understand where you&#x27;re coming from, I really do, but that line of thinking, taken to the end, is dangerous.<p>Should anyone be justified in doing anything, just because they want to, even if there&#x27;s  no direct positive effects on society?<p>I would guess virtually nobody would say absolutely no to this, of course, but are there then thresholds of type and frequency of activities over which the answer becomes an absolute no? What then are those thresholds? If the thresholds depends on other variables, like your own personal wealth now and in the past, then what are the values of those variables? Is there an absolute cap on the level of enjoyment one deserves out of life without helping others directly before one <i>must</i> stop, stay still at that level, and devote any further energies to helping others? What is that cap?<p>I think we all have internal intuition for these thresholds and values for ourselves, but you can&#x27;t force these on any other individual, and certainly not on society as a whole. Entertaining that idea that you can or should be able to is dangerous.<p>Doing direct <i>harm</i> to other people for your own enjoyment obviously should be condemned and prevented - but passively <i>not</i> helping others and instead using your resources and time purely on your own private entertainment, as is the case here, should have no net negative effect on the world. Live and let live.