If, in a particular universe, all index annuity sellers are crooks, and Jack sells index annuities in that universe, then Jack is a crook. If this law of the universe is true, and you live in that universe, then the law applies to you. Another example: Gravity affects everyone on earth, you are on earth, gravity thus affects you. And this is what the SEC thought securities regulators had proved about index annuities. But here’s what they really said:
Jack is a crook, Jack sells index annuities, thus all index annuity sellers are crooks. The fault with this sequence is Jack is only a subset of the universe, so Jack’s laws apply only to Jack. This has the same lack of logic as saying Mary has brown hair, Mary is a girl, therefore all girls have brown hair. The securities regulators found a small number of index annuity agents who were acting in crooked ways and from this convinced the SEC that all index annuity agents were crooks.
The problem is people usually don’t bother to try to determine whether a statement is logical, especially when the issue is framed as morality. Often the greater the illogic of a position, the more the promoter of the false position will present challenges as attacks against morality and goodness.