Having just watched the INDIANA JONES movies over the last week (on a whim with the kids), I would argue that much of the "Egad, he's a problematic tomb raider" takes are baked into the text of the movies. We've discussed this stuff since the 1980s and its noted in the films. 1/7

In TEMPLE OF DOOM, his entire arc is going from a greedy tomb raider to someone who returns a priceless artifact to its rightful owners entirely because it's the right thing to do. No "fortune and glory" this time, Dr. Jones.

RAIDERS arguably starts w/ Indy as a selfish adventurer. That he is racing the Nazis to acquire the Ark gives him a moral high ground. RAIDERS introduces him as a rogue-ish, borderline villainous anti-hero right from the start. He is only a shade "brighter" than Belloq.

In both LAST CRUSADE and KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, he is unwillingly pulled into the adventure by tyrannical armies seeking to harm his loved ones and/or procure seemingly powerful artifacts for grand-scale evil. And in none of these four films does he get to keep the relic.

Whether or not he is being problematic in his off-time (almost certainly, especially during RAIDERS and TEMPLE OF DOOM), his onscreen adventures present a professor/archaeologist who is only a "hero" because his rivals are genuine villains.

And the notion that he's a profit-seeking history teacher who spends his free time globetrotting for buried artifacts indifferent to charges of exploitation isn't some blazing hot take, it's very much acknowledged by the movies, especially the first two films.

Remember that Indiana Jones was envisioned as a seat-of-his-pants, ner-do-well scoundrel from the start, very much Spielberg and Lucas trying to create an American James Bond-type character. He may be the "hero" by moral default, but he's not and is never presumed to be a hero.