Many scientists make similar decisions every day, in the sense they spend much of their writing proposal after for proposal for research money from organizations whose missions they feel deeply troubled by (chiefly military/defense in the States)

Let's get specific. Exactly which research do you think meaningfully improved the world? And assuming you have some, by how much?

Following that, we can take a look at the harm done by Epstein and do some comparisons.

That's up to you. The reason I asked the question is because it's one, based on the comments here, that I think many people weren't asking themselves. And that's akin to condemning a man for 'x' without ever asking yourself if 'x' is even wrong.

As it's a moral question, there's not going to be any unambiguous right or wrong answer and we're all going to have different perspectives. One might even argue that you have a moral imperative to take his money for practically any reason so long as you are not directly assisting his other actions, since it means you are taking a chip, regardless of how small, out of the resources he had to carry on with said other actions.

As another example on this topic in Columbia the big drug dealers would frequently use their ill gotten wealth to do positive things such as fund schools for local towns. And these guys were involved in far worse behavior - murdering large numbers of people, often in brutal fashion to send a message. And that was similarly no secret. Should the townspeople have rejected their offer?

If your point is that applied morality is complex, I don't think you're saying anything new.

But you replied to my point about abusers exploiting the well-meaning and naive. I don't see what bringing up an obvious fact about moral complexity does here, especially since you refuse to engage usefully with your own point. Except of course to confuse the issue.

In practice, I don't think I've seen any attempts by Epstein associates to really grapple with the moral balance, to weigh the ends against the means. What I mostly see is them taking the money and either supporting him or dodging the hard questions. There isn't anybody willing to say, "Yeah, I suspected he was a manipulative, sex-trafficking pedophile, but I was cool with it because here's what the world got out of it."

There are plenty of good places to discuss moral nuances. But maybe try it in a place where it doesn't derail from holding people accountable for their behavior.

I'm not "engaging" because I'm not taking any specific position. In my experience debating moral values is about as productive as punching yourself in the face. These are issues that people should come to their own personal conclusions on. But as mentioned the issue I saw here is that many people were seemingly not even considering the underlying moral issue here before racing to condemn.

Online 'accountability' often heads directly into the domain of mob mentality. I think if more people stopped to ask 'hey is our outrage even really justified?' that the world be a much nicer place for everybody.

Morality is inherently social. A person living alone on an island has no need of morality. So I don't think the notion of a strictly personal morality even makes sense.

And neither do you, or you wouldn't be here arguing for some very specific moral choices of your own. You claim you're not taking any specific position, but you of course are. Your repeated intervention in the discussion demonstrates that. And your unwillingness to spell out the implications of that position is telling.

As long as Epstein didn't gain materially in the exchange, who cares where the money came from?

Does Epstein seem like a guy who did a lot of things just to make the world better?

Of course he gained in the exchange. He was an astute buyer of prestige, of legitimacy. Look at the scientists who went to bat for him after he had already been indicted, even convicted.

The end never justify the means.