This is what happens when you put altruism at the top of your moral hierarchy. The purpose of life becomes to serve others who need what you have, and one's virtue is totally dependent on how much of their wealth (%) they have given away https://twitter.com/WillSloanEsq/status/1258968265155641344

Which is first of not only absurd as a moral standard (i.e. you are evil to some degree, unless you live on the bare minimum and give away everything else), but also gives way to ridiculous real-world implications:

A billionaire who has donated 1% of his weath would have made a greater impact to the world than any average person who donates 100%, and this is not even counting his contribution to society that made him so rich in the first place (assuming no rent seeking).

But the billionaire is "evil", while the random person is "good". This kind of moral standard values virtue-signalling rather than *actual impact*, which is incoherent even if you define "good" as primarily the act of helping other people

Second, if altruism is the only standard of virtue then you are not allowing us, as human beings, any room for individual self-actualization, which is not only a core part of being human, but the driving force behind our progress as a species

You want us to all be good obedient worker bees living only for the good of the hive, and never, ever, ever for ourselves. This is far too much to ask of humanity, and actively degrades the very essence of our being.