Ethics are the beliefs that determine what we, individually, see as right and wrong. They help us decide what actions are morally right in daily life and business and help us act accordingly. They're almost constantly present in our everyday life and work.
Our sense of ethics comes from many different sources. Most obviously, the people you're around throughout your life influence your mindset. Your parents and close friends, for example! You're likely to share many of their beliefs just by being around them. Additionally, a person's religion and culture will massively affect their sense of ethics. These will likely be your basis of what is or isn't ethical.
These sources aren't always dependable. People you trust can have dangerous or factually misguided views that shape your own. It's easy to confidently hold onto dangerous beliefs just because they're what you're used to. That's why it's important to research and discuss complicated topics before forming an opinion.
I have mixed feelings about moral relativism. People definitely disagree about what is moral (that inherently comes with shaping your ethics through experience), but not that nobody is objectively wrong in their choice.
In most ethics disagreements, it's not a clear-cut "good thing vs. bad thing" and more "bad thing vs. different bad thing". In those cases, neither choice is objectively better. Disagreements are naturally going to arise from different perspectives and ethical views. However, people need to be held accountable for their actions if they purposefully harm others with that choice.
As for objective moral truth, I don't really agree with it. I believe some actions ARE inherently right or wrong (like discrimination, for example). However, for most situations, it varies based on conditions. Is an action still objectively wrong if the specific situation or danger makes it the best, safest available option?
In 2015, the price of a drug called Daraprim was increased by more than 5,000% from $13.50 to $750 per pill. Daraprim is a life-saving drug used to treat toxoplasmosis, a rare parasitic disease. Martin Shkreli, the founder of Vyera Pharmaceuticals (the company that now owns Daraprim) claimed that the money was to develop better treatments for toxoplasmosis and keep the company in business[1].
This is what I mean by something being inherently right or wrong. A price increase of 5,000% is ridiculous, but if they genuinely needed the money to keep the company afloat, would it be ethical? At the time, there were no generic alternatives to Daraprim. Would it be better to go bankrupt and no longer offer the drug, or charge exorbitant prices to keep it available? If I had to pick, I would keep it at a higher price. I wouldn't be happy about it, but it seems like the better of the two options.
However, let's add some extra information to the scenario:
Firstly, some doctors have questioned the need for better toxoplasmosis treatment, saying any possible side effects could be managed[1]. It only made it harder for hospitals to obtain the drug for treatment.
Secondly, in light of the price increase and backlash, Vyera Pharmaceuticals was sued in federal court for allegedly blocking access to a key ingredient and data needed for making and evaluating the market potential of a generic version of the drug[2].
Thirdly, a federal judge ordered Shkreli to return $64.6 million of profits in light of the ruling. He was already convicted on securities fraud charges and was serving a prison sentence, and was now prevented from ever participating in the pharmaceutical industry again[2].
These surrounding circumstances make me significantly less likely to believe Shkreli's claims that it was to keep the company in business. With this in mind, I believe this price raise was unethical - a decision made specifically to increase profits at the expense of those who need it. Luckily, in the current day, there are now generic variants of Daraprim[3], and Vyera has much less direct control over the price.
Sources:
Commenti