Just as a point of interest, it would be easy to defend the OP's idea by reference to utilitarian moral philosophy. Utilitarians attempt to balance out the sum totals of the positive and negative consequences (crudely, the pleasure and suffering) of an action caused to all who are affected by it. They decide it is good if more happiness is created or suffering relieved than suffering or unhappiness created. From Wikipedia:everyone who thinks that this is right should read Kant and learn ethics and morals.
"Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is defined in various ways, but is usually related to the well-being of sentient entities. Originally, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarianism, defined utility as the aggregate pleasure after deducting suffering of all involved in any action."
Indeed, it would even be possible to argue from a utilitarian ethical perspective that following the OP's suggestion would not only be morally virtuous, but might even be a moral imperative. Having said that, I am definitely not arguing this myself and indeed I read the original post as a light-hearted suggestion that was not entirely serious. Maybe we are all over-reacting a little?