I think it was Nietzsche who elucidated Christian moral values as being a "slave morality", that emphasized things like:
* Don't lie, cheat or steal.
* Love your neighbor.
* Be charitable and have pity.https://en.wikipedia...–slave_morality
Biblical principles of humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well.
Maybe the Christian Bible needs to be defenestrated, and replaced with:
* It's ok to lie a lot, if it serves a higher purpose.
* If your neighbor is weak (and not very intelligent), and not actually making a difference in the world, you are permitted to be unkind towards him. They will share in your good works, anyways, and that's kindness enough; they should be thanking
* Being charitable just means you are rewarding people for their inferiority.
What do you think? That's the "master morality" -- the morality of many "movers and shakers". (Though, they have to keep concealed their true morality, in case the plebs catch on.)
Or maybe we could take something like a classic Utilitarian approach to morality, where
* Minor lies count as "minus 1".
* Major lies count as "minus 2".
* A minor good deed counts "plus 1".
* A major good deed counts as "plus 5".
So, if you tell 2 minor lies, 1 major lie, and do 1 major good deed, the moral value is:
(-1) + (-1) + (-2) + (+5) = +1, which is a "minor good".
Maybe a rape or a murder is a "minus 1,000" -- but, hold on, if a "supremely good" deed counts as "plus 20", say, then if you do 51 "supremely good" deeds, when we run the numbers, we find:
moral value = (-1,000) + 51 x (20) = +20,
which counts as "good", too.
I think that's probably how people think about Musk -- they take a Utilitarian approach, and add up the good and bad, and reach a positive moral score; so, he is considered "good".
Now, we have clinical labels like "psychopath" or "sociopath", but maybe that's just more of the cultural programming?
And, technically, "psychopath" is only considered a "pathology" if it causes harm to self or other. Look at Trump. He clearly exhibits the classic characteristics of a psychopath (or maybe some extreme form of narcissist), yet 40% of the population love him -- so it would not be considered a "pathology". This is part of the reason many psychologists don't want to weigh in on declaring Trump a psychopath; the other main reason is that they haven't had a chance to make an up-close, clinical assessment.