Economists have been arguing this for over 400 years. It is an inherent moral philosophy question. It is also a metaphysical question. (What is labor, what is capital, is not a single thing everyone agrees upon, furthermore these economists are not even internally consistent with their own writings when you examine what they wrote in year X and them compare a decade later with X+10)

My answer is the William James answer. You can't end a metaphysical claim, with a metaphysical answer saying this is my obligation. Metaphysics can't defeat metaphysics.

Instead Metaphysics frees the mind, but metaphysics can also imprison the mind. Instead we must organize the mind via doing action, and thus metaphysics is solved via the casuistic answer.

(this is cryptic, just read the following wikipedia article, or Ursula K Le Guin The Ones Who Walk from OMELAS.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Philosopher_and_the_Moral_Life

(also remember though, casuistry can be sophistry so you have to see it as a trinity loop A=>B=>C and after C are A and B still being triggered.
Are you still outraged by the present, or did you find serenity that is true and not a false illusion.)