Sorry for adding a new set of things to enumerate over. I think there are a bunch of things that it&#x27;s easy to conflate between, and I want to distinguish them explicitly.<p>(a) The Copenhagen interpretation of ethics, the idea (roughly stated) that people who interact with a problem are more responsible than people who ignore it<p>(b) The factual question of whether some people subscribe to CIE (or perhaps deny it, but act as though they subscribe to it)<p>(c) The normative question of whether CIE is &quot;correct&quot;.<p>(d) Factual questions about which of (1), (2) and (3) funge off against each other under which situations<p>You seem to be making some claims about (d) and then saying (b) is false and (a) is a strawman, but that doesn&#x27;t follow.<p>You&#x27;re saying pretty explicitly that people who do (3) are okay, possibly conditional on not having interacted with starving people; and people who do (2) are bad. If that&#x27;s not what you think, please say so. If it is, then the thing you&#x27;re calling a straw man is something you actually subscribe to.<p>If you think it&#x27;s relevant, that there&#x27;s no business relation, then <i>that is pretty much exactly what CIE is</i>. And fine, go ahead and argue, as others in the thread have done, for (c). Argue that yes, it&#x27;s important that there&#x27;s no business relation, and that (3) is better than (2).<p>But right now you&#x27;re coming across kind of like:<p>&quot;Stavrians think it&#x27;s unethical to floom in your garglies.&quot;<p>&quot;That&#x27;s a strawman. <i>Of course</i> it&#x27;s unethical to floom in your garglies.&quot;<p>and it&#x27;s pretty frustrating.