An interesting perspective, but…
I’m not quite buying it.
You see, George did understand the kindness of his actions. He was a kind person and he was trying to help people. He knew that all along.
As it turned out, his actions had positive effects and people did appreciate his kindness. But what if things didn’t turn out so well? What if people didn’t appreciate his kindness?
In assessing the morality of his actions, it’s not directly relevant that the outcomes were good or that he had friends who truly appreciated his kindness. He was thoughtful and acted out of kind intentions. That’s what’s important, from an ethics perspective. But the film seems more interested in justifying his actions according to outcomes and according to whether other people appreciated him.
But George’s actions would have been 100% just as moral, even if things had turned out badly and if no-one at all appreciated his kindness.