Right, that&#x27;s exactly a paradox&#x2F;error that the Copenhagen critique elucidates: two groups have (basically) the <i>same effect</i> on the world (providing the opportunity to have regular work to do in exchange for money), but you only rebuke one of them, since they&#x27;re doing it for profit.<p>I can think of logical reasons to justify distinguishing them, but I rarely see such reasons made explicit. (One reason might be that there&#x27;s a greater incentive to cut corners on worker treatment when you&#x27;re for profit rather then just doing it out of the goodness of your heart, but that would justify at most <i>tighter oversight</i>, not moral condemnation of doing the thing at all, as we normally see.)