The critique is that some mothers mix dirty water with the dairy formula and give their kids diarrhea, from which some of these kids die. (Yes I do know that breast milk has other health benefits for kids.) But isn’t dehydration the major mechanism of death? Forgive me for sounding flip, but shouldn’t Nestle be advertising its dairy products to mothers with kids with diarrhea, so then they wouldn’t die? (Even dirty water is better to drink than doing nothing and usually it will save most lives, or so I have been told.) Isn’t one way of looking at the problem that Nestle doesn’t have good enough ads?
Flipness aside, Clooney supposedly is not being paid for his role in the movie, so
his behavior raises a question for utilitarianism. Should not a saint
work for evil causes, earn more money, and subsidize good causes with
the surplus? I believe this depends on whether good or evil causes rely more on cash flow, whether good or evil causes invest resources more productively toward their good or evil ends, and the costs of mixing good and evil causes in terms of symbolic values.
Under what conditions will evil causes end up manned exclusively by good people?