Like any crime or bad ethical activity, let's think about who was hurt and who benefited by his action of buying sanitizer from an area with it and selling it t

Like any crime or bad ethical activity, let's think about who was hurt and who benefited by his action of buying sanitizer from an area with it and selling it to an area without it. 1. Consumers of sanitizer in his area were harmed (and those people were willing to spend at least $2 per bottle) 2. Consumers of sanitizer in other areas who purchased online benefited (and those people were willing to spend $20+ per bottle) 3. He also benefited financially Why is it a bad thing to take away the option to purchase sanitizer from someone in his area (presumably from people who don't want it as much - as they had the option to purchase but hadn't yet) and sell it to people who want it (and don't have the option to purchase it)? I don't understand why the people in his area deserve the sanitizer more than people in another area - or certainly why that should be a crime. He wasn't dumping the sanitizer into a fire- he was providing the sanitizer to people who really wanted it!