Singer asserts that if a dollar was earned by a specific type of repugnant action then that dollar can only be accepted by a Charity remedying that type of repugnant action. However, the Arts- and even Philosophy- can claim to be doing precisely that by making life more meaningful and worth living despite pain and humiliation and anguish. Thus the Arts are equally worthy recipients, because they aim to prevent addiction from happening in the first place, as compared to other Charity's which seek to rehabilitate addicts. One way to counter this argument is to say that there should be

1) specific targeting of an adversely affected population

2) regular audits for cost effectiveness



However, given that uncertainty and information asymmetry obtains, this is also an argument for abolishing private philanthropy altogether or to making any such donation or bequest subject to a judicial review.



It is foolish to use ethics to question free decisions, unless one believes freedom is not itself an ethical 'good'.



There is a separate issue connected with campaigns targeting Humanistic Institutions for accepting 'tainted' money. A rational sociopath will prefer to use his ill-gotten loot to buy political influence rather than a position in High Society by appearing a Maecenas to the Arts. Perhaps, this is already happening or has already happened. Has the outcome really been so desirable that we should persist in this sort of 'moral panic'?