&gt; Yes, the company that actively prevents people from obtaining life-saving medicine for billions extra in profit is more reprehensible than the company that makes no pretenses about having anything to do with life and death.<p>So the moral impact of a company&#x27;s actions depends not on the net good done by that company, but on the &quot;pretenses&quot; it does or does not put on? It&#x27;s morally better to waste natural resources on frivolities like new iPhones every year, instead of saving some lives (but not all)?<p>And if it&#x27;s morally reprehensible to not save a life when you have the power to do so, aren&#x27;t all of Apple&#x27;s customers morally reprehensible for buying iPhones? That money could literally save the life of someone in the world that lacks basic necessities.