The reason you don't understand my argument after reinterpreting it is because you have for some reason excluded a few important words from it: "inherently", "should" (as in "should encourage") and "willingly". I am inclined to think your confusion is intentional and therefore explaining myself will be a waste of time.
Please, that's a cop out. I didn't re-interpret anything and "should" doesn't add anything to that sentence.
"if we define it as something that the society should encourage
because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are
arguably on a higher ground since they are demonstrably beneficial
to people who are willingly giving them money"
That's a direct quote from your comment. I merely asked how you got from A to B. How are for-profits "demonstrably beneficial" given your definition of moral ground? You're stating a definition and just stating a conclusion you draw with no actual substance into how you're making that conclusion.
I challenge your statement that for-profits are "demonstrably beneficial" merely because people give them money!
The reason you don't understand my argument after reinterpreting it is because you have for some reason excluded a few important words from it: "inherently", "should" (as in "should encourage") and "willingly". I am inclined to think your confusion is intentional and therefore explaining myself will be a waste of time.