Of course not, but look: you manage the investment arm of a charity fund and your job is to provide more income for that fund in the future. If you put money i

Of course not, but look: you manage the investment arm of a charity fund and your job is to provide more income for that fund in the future. If you put money into stocks, and get a return on that, that return means very concrete things: more people who get polio vaccines, more people who get dewormed, etc, etc. Very concrete results. If you don't put money into stocks, because they are unethical ... well, how exactly? As we have mentioned the stock has already been sold. So, you don't do it because by doing so you are helping support a market system that may provide a setting for future unethical corporations to arise in and go public? (Along with many ethical corporations?) Or because by providing demand for the stock now, you retrocausally made it possible for that company to have IPO'd years or decades ago? These are very abstract and weird concerns when your job is very directly to help people. You say "if unethical corporations faced divestiture", but even a large fund like this one has no say in that. If they don't invest in McDonald's or Walmart or whatever, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. So seriously, if you were running the fund, what would you do? For real. If you make less money, actual human beings die who would not have died, in volume. (All of this said, I would feel pretty dirty about buying the stock of a prison company, anyway. But railing on them for stuff like McDonald's and Walmart just ... doesn't make sense.)