I think what you're missing is how the wealth was made. It would have been better if Amazon had paid all its workers better money, if products had been cheaper.

You see, profit is the difference between what the cost of product production (and that includes the salaries of workers) and how much the ownership class wants to take home. At the moment, price is determined by what the market will bear.

Billions of people the world over are living terrible lives because people are underpaid. When you don't underpay people, profit is marginal.

Mackenziie Scott might be giving away billions, but she also grew up in a system which she and others think is ethical. It is unethical (not for the greater good) to treat people the way Amazon treats its staff. And to charge the many suppliers to Amazon what they are being charged. Initially, Amazon put a lot of people out of business, and Mackenzie Scott was part of that.

How many people did Alfred Nobel kill with his weapon making? You're talking about moral licencing. If someone is good in one area, does that give them the right to be bad in another area?

MacKenzie Scott might well have had a change of heart, but that does not mean that when she started out, whe wasn't part of the problem.