From an utilitarian perspective, and looking at the big picture, it’s still better for society if they lose their money to a con artist that just wants to get rich than if they give it to a con artist that wants to crown himself as king of an absolute monarchy.
But you are assuming all your victims would have used that money which is definitely not the case. How would you make sure only “guilty” people buy your scam.
Yes, but presumption of innocense is also a fundamental human right and your scam would would also include innocent victims as collateral. You know this is on very weak foot ethically.
He is still scamming people because he knows they are more susceptible to such scams. His wife is right.
From an utilitarian perspective, and looking at the big picture, it’s still better for society if they lose their money to a con artist that just wants to get rich than if they give it to a con artist that wants to crown himself as king of an absolute monarchy.
But he also reinforces them and develops a large financial incentive to support such wannabe monarchs
But you are assuming all your victims would have used that money which is definitely not the case. How would you make sure only “guilty” people buy your scam.
or… the money they spend would instead go to trump 2024 and the purchase of more firearms and ammo…
Yes, but presumption of innocense is also a fundamental human right and your scam would would also include innocent victims as collateral. You know this is on very weak foot ethically.