&gt;Giving someone an option they didn&#x27;t have before makes them strictly better off. They can choose between it and their other options.<p>Is this always true?  Imagine a third world country where children die from lack of food, clean water, and medical care.  Now imagine a group that goes in and offers to exploit the children (I&#x27;ll leave how up to your imagination) in exchange for meeting all their basic needs.  Is this group making the children better off... and conversely, are anyone fighting for laws to ban the actions of this group working to make the children worse off?  Almost every single person I&#x27;ve brought this up to will say yes for at least some forms of exploitation.  If you go with child labor, you&#x27;ll get a decent number on either side, but if you go with other forms of exploitation the rate who say that offering the choice is harmful jumps to basically 100%.  (This is one of those questions that, if I ever make it rich, I would fund official research into, but until then I will admit this is based off of my person anecdotes.)<p>All that being said, I agree that you shouldn&#x27;t be responsible for the underlying situation.  Even if you are wrong for offering a given bad choice, you are not at fault for the underlying situation.