I think you’re missing the points about scale and marginal utility. If you have more food than 3 generations of your family will ever eat, and continue to take more while others are starving, you can make a moral argument that maybe you shouldn’t have so much food. Much less continue to try and get more. It becomes more egregious when you, say, take food from your employees who don’t always have enough.
I think a lot of these questions get into philosophical territory, which even when correct isn’t particularly useful.
To me, how much wealth you have shouldn’t be linked to anything but how much money you’ve made. The amount of money you e made should be proportional to the impact you’ve has on the world and others. I don’t see a problem with someone being a billionaire if they did something that impacted a billion people lives and collected a dollar for it.
The bigger problem I see is that the current system rewards folks for doing anything that makes money. It also prioritizes money to the point that it’s a virtue. So effectively you tell folks you matter more if you have more money, and don’t put constraints on making money.
So I guess it’s seems pretty true that "behind every great fortune is a great crime ", but it doesn’t have to be the case. Which is. 100% useless statement. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
More reputable sauce. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/03/unilever-named-international-sponsor-of-war-by-ukraine