Sure, I would prefer to deal with problems of having too much money, rather than not having enough money. At least, with too much money you can hire people to help you, and you have enough free time to focus on the problems.

I don't think there is a reliable way to keep wealth secret. If it is legally obtained, you need to declare it in your tax form... and I don't trust the government's ability to keep secrets. You buy something expensive, people may notice. Heck, you stop having a daily job, people may notice. But there could be a sweet spot somewhere between "being an average person" and "being so rich that criminals start paying attention".

It also depends on what lifestyle you want. I suppose that rich people have all kinds of activities where they signal their wealth to each other, and maintain social contact with each other -- you cannot do this and keep your wealth secret at the same time. However, you could go for something like "middle class, except with extra options, and all inconvenience removed".

Probably a good way to achieve it would be to create a shell company... and get employed by it. Which would make you your own boss, except no outsider would know. You do whatever you want, whenever you want, and if people ask you about your job, you have a boring answer. If you need to spend big money, officially the company pays it, not you. You could even keep the secret from your friends and your partners (because they sometimes become ex-friends and ex-partners).

Sounds like I have a plan, now all I need is the money. :D 

There are a few clearly true statements that get compressed in your original statement, which can then be used to suggest wrong statements. This is an equivocation.

One question is “does our experience of evil or suffering inform our moral judgments?”

Another is “have people fought against evil and won?”

A third is “can a lesser wrong be acceptable in pursuit of a greater good?”

A fourth is something like “will our total human experience of evil and suffering prove so useful in aligning superintelligent AI that it is a net positive?”

A fifth is “does even the most extreme, straightforward examples of evil and suffering have any side benefits, despite being heavily net negative?”

Again, it’s fine to babble, but the culture here is that you need to clarify what question your asking. Then argue it persuasively to the best of your ability. Or try arguing the opposite, just to get clarity. Precision is a virtue.

I can’t spend time to reply any more to introduce you to the site’s culture. But I think you might benefit from a philosophy class.