What is derisively referred to as "guilt by association" is generally a pretty good way to evaluate moral character. Here's where "guilt by association" is bad

What is derisively referred to as "guilt by association" is generally a pretty good way to evaluate moral character. Here's where "guilt by association" is bad: 1. You're a vegetarian. 2. Hitler is also a vegetarian. 3. Therefore, you're evil. Here's where making inferences about moral character using personal associations is good: 1. Bill Gates started his relationship with Epstein, after Epstein was convicted of sex crimes. 2. There is no reasonable way Gates couldn't know this about Epstein. 3. Therefore, Gates is in the wrong for having a relationship with Epstein. There are many factors that go into evaluating such claims, such as whether it is reasonable to know the facts about the person you are associating with, and what sort of power dynamic exists between the two. For example, MIT Media Lab received a lot of funding from Epstein, and yet I don't think the students there need to be tarred by association. The professors, I'm more suspicious of. The leadership like Joi Ito are despicable, given that Epstein was convicted of "procuring a child for prostitution" in 2008! Simply dismissing all of these claims as "guilt by association" means that you aren't evaluating their respective strengths independently.