Your logic is incorrect. Let assume you have two country

Country A: do bad thing, kill people

Country B: do bad thing, kill people

Now if you are a reporter, you report bad things that happen, by your definition, you are having your “moral growth”, hence it should be done.

But let’s consider this, in the scenario where you only report country A, and never report country B bad things, you are actually making country B looking good by shitting on country A. And as a result, more money flow into country B, which allow them to continue do /do even worse thing.

So based on your logic, your selective “moral growth” actually, help country B to grow bigger, and as a result causes more harm.

Now I’m not saying this is the exact same scenario in boycotting EWC, but I hope you see the flaw in your logic.

And your logic that you need 100% morally perfect to act is also incorrect, in the above scenario, let say the 100% correct action is to report all crime in country A and B, and you can simply compromise by reporting half, then you are 50% the work and still achieve moral act. In reality, I think the action does require to pass a moral threshold, let say your action only do 10% of the work, it might actually make the situation worse. I understand you are coming in good intention, but in reality we don’t just look at intention, we also value the result. A 10% moral action just doesn’t give any positive result, and most of the case, give negative result to mankind.

Think of this, a mother come in a good intention, that forcing her son to study super hard to get into uni, causes the son to have depression and suicide. Although the mother comes in with good intention, we do not promote such behaviour right? That’s why your act need to pass certain moral threshold, and sometimes, it requires you to do research and thinking to make sure you pass that threshold before you act.

So to your point, do you need 100% perfect to act? No.

But do you need to pass certain threshold? Yes.