It isn’t about what they did, it is the justification they gave for doing or not doing it.

If they said “we cozied up to China, but didn’t cozy up to SA because it made business sense in the former scenario but not in the latter one”, that would be one thing. But if they said “we cozied up to China because we want to stay out of politics and be neutral” while still not cozying it up to SA and flaunting how morally righteous they were for giving SA the finger, that’s a very different scenario.

At best, it is just dishonest and hypocritical.

You're talking about being strictly global utilitarian in all actions which is completely unworkable when it endangers the actor. Of course, they aren't as hard on China because of money. I don't see why they need to spell it out so as not to appear dishonest — it's so obvious that it can be assumed.

That doesn't mean it is better to also not be hard on North Carolina, which is OP's error. There is no moral framework in which appearance of hypocrisy is worse than not helping others.

Their actions also go against deontological ethics as well.

Indeed, but not doing anything in both cases is still worse in that system, which is the point. You have to do wild contortions to make doing one fewer good thing better .

It's more manipulative and does a better job of revealing their true motives. Doing a tiny good deed for manipulative reasons can be a net negative.

> Doing a tiny good deed for manipulative reasons can be a net negative.

In this case, how?

A company that does a good deed will draw attention and support away from other companies. If the good deed was done for ethical reasons, then that attention and support will feed further good deeds in the future. If it was done for manipulative reasons, then it dilutes the money going to the more ethical companies. The manipulative company is less likely to do good deeds in the future. It's more likely to ignore opportunities, or to do easier and less meaningful good deeds.

In other words, it's not a one-off. There is the same positive effect in the short term, but the long term differs.

All of that logic could easily apply to this scenario.

For a simpler scenario, if a company does a good deed to apologize for a bad deed, and the good deed is smaller but gets them off the hook, then that's a very clear net negative.

In what way would the long term effect be worse if they had not done anything in North Carolina? Did their actions in North Carolina keep them alive long enough to apologize to China?

"But why male models?"

Ah, so they just subscribe to profit ethics. It all makes sense now.

Again, is that worse than doing the wrong thing both times? Naming an action does not affect its outcome.

How so? The nature of profit ethics is that the right thing to do is what is profitable. This is exactly what they are doing in both cases. They have never done "the wrong thing".

I am asking if there exists any ethical system under which their actions are worse than doing what the original poster considers to be wrong in both cases.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21207175, a reply to you well before you submitted this comment.

And see my response. You and the others in this thread are grasping for straws trying to find a way to make doing more good deeds worse than doing fewer.