indeed, I meant that the charity could have MORE money if BigBank wouldn't sell the wind farm overpriced but for a fair price and could thus save more children like you said tat the end.

But that's comparing to a hypothetical bank which is not a commercial corporation. Indeed, on that standard, people who give money to the charity are not baby killers because they "could have given a little bit more" ... so its not a pragma that stands up to scrutiny.

The standard is, are those children better off if the BigBadBank does the action - in the way that it does actions - or if the BigBadBank does not do the action. Clearly, provided the BigBadBank is not granted a monopoly, they are better off if the BigBadBank does engage in the financing then if it does not.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.