Can compassion and profit really coexist, or does turning "kindness into capital" change its moral character?

I ask this after reading: When Compassion Becomes Capital: The Economics of a Dead Mouse, a Jataka story (ancient fables), examining the uneasy relationship between Buddhist ethics, self-interest and entrepreneurship.

The article asks whether an ethical life and a successful business life are necessarily in conflict and what happens when an act of compassion becomes the starting point of a series of economic transactions.

Can someone be a good person if they only do good things for their own benefit?

Seen this before, applied to China in particular, and always spoken about in a negative connotation
But got me thinking - is this such a bad idea?

More and more it is looking likely AI/robotics will displace a vast amount of careers, possibly leading to a global unemployment crisis.

If a vast majority of people cannot be employed/earn a living, then should an alternative to the monetary system fill the void to ensure some kind of distribution so people don’t just starve or riot?

Questions-
How might a social credit score work?
How would it be enforced/score be tallied?
What would such a world be like? Everyone all the time being nice (or at least surface-level nice)?

Edit: Replies are generally assuming this would be some 1984 style big brother system, with disobedience to a political party leading to starvation/imprisonment. I had a more optimistic outlook in writing this.
Pretty much “good deeds” would replace currency, begging the question how would score be kept?
Does helping an old lady across the road 100 times earn a trip to Sweden? Curing cancer gets you a super yacht?

Say we have two rooms, know them as room A and B, and each contains a random living being, with each pairing containing differences you could become aware of. You are told by an informant that you must cause one of the beings to die by pushing a corresponding button.

You are able to see both living beings, but they can not see you, and you are unable to communicate with them. The informant is also able to answer any questions you have regarding each being with a 100% guarantee of being right, but can only do so by recalling past events , and is unable to provide judgement or thoughts of their own, simply just what each being has done. You are able to process and consider everything the informant tells you without difficulty.

Should this experiment be repeated infinitely,

Is there a decision making process you could follow to make the “correct” decision every time, if not, then what process would be most likely to produce the “best” result each time.

Additionally, how do you think a beyond human, non-biased being would approach the question, using pure objectivity to eliminate the subjectivity of what is right. 

How would your answer change if the informant were able to describe future events as well?

Is it ehtieical to ever forcefully prescript in war?

How many unwilling lives is national security worth?

For this, I’m going to be blunt. I’m talking about the Russia x Ukraine War. As many of you will know, Ukraine has compulsory mobilisation laws for certain groups of citizens, including men within particular age ranges. My understanding is that men aged 25-60 may be affected, although please correct me if I have that wrong.

I have two main points, and I’ll try to keep this simple.

There are significant strategic reasons to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Russian-controlled state. Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty matter, and there are serious security implications for the wider region.

However, if a country’s citizens are unwilling to fight for its independence, how many unwilling people’s lives can reasonably be put at risk in the name of preserving that independence? At what point do we have to question the human cost of pursuing that political and strategic objective?

I want to clarify a few things before people misunderstand my position.

First, I despise Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and I place the overwhelming responsibility for the war and the resulting loss of life on Russia for initiating and continuing its aggression. Questioning Ukraine’s mobilisation policies does not mean excusing Russia or denying Ukraine’s right to defend itself.

Second, I recognise the counterargument that, if Russia were to face little or no resistance and succeeded in bringing Ukraine under its control, the resulting occupation could lead to further deaths, repression, and suffering. It is entirely possible that the long-term human cost of surrendering without resistance could exceed the cost of continuing to fight.

However, we cannot know that counterfactual with certainty. An unopposed invasion might lead to one set of outcomes, while continued resistance might lead to another. The uncertainty cuts both ways, and I don’t think the mere possibility of a worse outcome under occupation is sufficient, on its own, to settle the question.

Ultimately, my question is this: How much should a state be entitled to demand from its citizens in the name of national survival, particularly when some of those citizens do not wish to fight?

I understand that this is not a simple question. Ukraine is defending itself against an invasion, and its choices are constrained by the actions of the Russian state. But I think we should be able to acknowledge both Ukraine’s right to exist independently and the moral importance of individual lives, autonomy, and consent.

Where should we draw that line?

If you want to answer this outside of the Ukraine and Russian War - go ahead. I used this example of current events not to enforce my own view but to centre everyones argments around a conflict most of us know well by now to test our hypothetical dilemmas. Russia may also mandatory prescript, but I have used Ukraine as I feel it provides a more intressting angle in its defencive position.

whether you’re a "good person" or "evil" pretty much boils down to how you were raised or the environment you grew up in. I’m not gonna get all deep into the psych stuff, but honestly? I don’t think anyone does good just for the sake of being good. They do it out of habit, or because it makes them feel good about themselves. That doesn't actually make you a good person—you're just acting out of self-interest.
So why do we judge psychopaths and throw labels at them? I’m not making excuses for them, but they’re victims of a messed-up life that turned them into straight-up beasts. They do what they do because they have this crazy, overwhelming urge to hurt people—sort of like a sex drive or something along those lines.
What makes you so sure you wouldn't give in if you had those exact same intense urges? Get what I’m saying? You didn’t build the "goodness" inside yourself, so you don't deserve praise for it. You were simply programmed that way.

If I close my eyes to the chaos and blood and war, should I be ashamed? Everyone else had bad childhoods, why do I get to look away? Why do I get to live while others die, why don't I fight to the death? why don't I lose my life for the cause? Why don't I lose my sanity and will to continue for it? I've heard a lot of moderates say, you can fight for good in other ways, and I hear that but isn't that just cowardice?

For context, I have BPD, ADHD, ASD, MDD and general anxiety disorder. If that bears any weight.

P.S. I am not suicidal and this isn't supposed to be political, and I don't think it is; it is about ethics. Is it ethical to exist in a world like ours?