Please be a little more specific about what "that" is.

I saw something interesting last night on the Discovery channels about Darwin. His theory of evolution and survival of the fittest was used by some industrialists like Rockefeller to justify their predatory actions.

They thought they were an improved member of the species and they were entitled to "kill" off the others.

Darwin's position was that the survivors were not unnecessarily superior, just better adapted.

I can see Darwin's point because whatever conditions fostered a change in a certain species that made it better adapted could be reversed or change into a different condition that would cause that strain to loose that advantage and cease to be dominant and die out.

Walmart may well be in decline now.

In the mean time their charitable donations do not indicate evil anymore that charitable donations from other companies and foundations. I think if you compare how much they give compared to their profits and likewise for other companies and foundations, you can judge their level of benevolence or malevolence.

When I look around on the net I cannot find a direct comparison but from what I found, it seems to me that they give more than others.

I think it is patently absurd to say that charitable donations are an indication of wrongdoing.

I once gave a young lady the entire tuition to go to the Clown College in Sarasota Fla and did not ask to be repaid. It was somewhere between 2 and 3 thousand bucks. I asked my tax preparer if I could deduct it some how. He put it down as a scholarship and deducted it from my income. Therefore I did not have to pay taxes on that amount of money. In other words I got 28% of the money back, not 100%.

Is that considered evil? The young lady supplements her income by doing "Gigs" at local parties and events through an agent which I consider as a good thing.