[rgoulter]

"So you take into account the positive effects of mental health donations but not the negative effects of the promotion of healing crystals. No shit you'll come out ahead."

Ah, I see how my comment can be read like that.

I don't mean to say "only consider the positives of one and not the negatives of the other". And "the existence of negatives means the thing is negative" would also be a bad way of thinking about it.

The approach ought to be "The benefits should be weighed against the costs".

[raquo]

Yes well everyone has a different idea of what to include in the costs, that's all fluffy and can be twisted to suit whatever result one wants.

Which is why some people choose moral principles that are more rigid. And well scamming people into buying useless rocks is on the wrong side of mine, no matter what moral kickback it's artificially bundled with.