> Morally, that any one person, by virtue of their relative wealth alone, is judged a provider, at gunpoint if necessary, to others who, by virtue of their relative lack of wealth alone, is considered worthy of substance, is such an inversion of right and wrong as to warrant some serious soul-searching about what makes one worthy of punishment or reward.
That makes quite a few assumptions about the nature of money, the ownership of money, and how it is accumulated. Given, those assumptions are shared by most people in capitalistic systems, but that doesn't mean they are sacrosanct and we should reexamine them from time to time.
For example, one possible interpretation is that it's the system that allows this accumulation of wealth, and that the system favors certain people and starting conditions over others. If we accept that the system is responsible for quite a bit of the wealth (could the same be achieved in a drastically different system, say, North Korea?), then it can be viewed less as taking money from one and giving to another as much as fees and discounts, or incentives and disincentives built into the system in the hope of either making it more efficient in the end or better in some desired respect.
Note: I'm not necessarily pushing the above view, but instead using it to illuminate that perspective informs our opinions quite a bit, and that stepping back and reexamining our assumptions may have benefit or change how we think. At worst it will be a waste of time and we'll come away with the same opinion.