Suppose that someone advertising for a humanitarian charity has noted that people are far more likely to donate money if a poster banner depicts a child that is cute and of a particular race (let’s say, white) than if a poster banner depicts a child that is ugly and of a different race (let’s say, black or Hispanic.)
This advertiser then puts in place an unofficial rule: Only cute white children will be shown on these humanitarian-charity poster banners; children that are not cute and not white will not have their pictures displayed. And yes indeed, donations skyrocket and people are donating lots of money; far more than they would have, had they seen pictures of suffering children who are not cute or not white. Children who are not cute or not white simply don’t tug on these donors’ heartstrings the same way.
Now, who is *more *morally wrong here - the advertiser, or the general public? Obviously, they’re both morally at fault, but who is *more *at fault?