5 ms·

I feel like people who find headlines like this repulsive have never dealt with complex moral issues or taken a moral philosophy class. As i mention frequently

I feel like people who find headlines like this repulsive have never dealt with complex moral issues or taken a moral philosophy class. As i mention frequently, i was in US nuclear navy. Its self-regulated. The DOE and NRC dont come and inspect the nuclear warships being run by 22 year old kids. This is possible almost entirely due to cultural reasons. A huge portion of initial and periodic training is devoted to integrity and aligning morality. "Moral" is a subtly toxic word because it has some vague equivalence with being nice, but in reality they are totally orthogonal. If your friend is doing bad things as a nuclear sailor and you know his family is living paycheck to paycheck, sometimes the moral thing is to get him in trouble so he loses half months pay X 2 months. For a more direct comparison, when natural disasters happen, most groceries are prohibited from raising prices for moral reasons - how could it be right to charge people more for water when they dont have any? The answer, that requires you to turn away people seeking clean water, is that if you dont raise prices the water will likely run out because people who didnt really need it were buying it just because.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
magicalist 7y ago
> For a more direct comparison.... The answer, that requires you to turn away people seeking clean water, is that if you dont raise prices the water will likely run out because people who didnt really need it were buying it just because. I mean the guy literally says why they're doing it (there's available needy-people margin to cash in on), and it's not to ensure they don't run out of a limited supply. But keep carrying that water for them for free if you want, I guess.
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  >there's available needy-people margin to cash in on he does not say this, and i dont think thats a reasonable interpretation. >But keep carrying that water for them for free if you want, I guess. i dont know what this means.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
goalieca 7y ago
Pricing doesn’t fix the scarcity problem in a shortage or short term emergency. Rationing is the best way to address it.
- bhickey 7y ago
  Except it does. There was a shortage of generators after Katrina. A guy filled a U-Haul with generators and trucked them into the disaster area to resell at a markup. He was arrested for his trouble. Everyone in the situation was made worse off. Rising prices bring in supply. Rationing encourages over consumption and black market trade -- if there's a price ceiling you better believe I'm going to max out my gasoline ration whether I need it or not.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Rich people's lives aren't worth more than than poor people's lives
    - bhickey 7y ago
      I never said they were. I said that high prices attract supply. This supply then drives down prices. This doesn't work for drug pricing due to monopolies. It does work for hauling water into a city on an 18-wheeler.
      - loopz 7y ago
        Scarcity, crisis, war. Good for filling someone's pockets. Follow The Money.
  - pas 7y ago
    Raising prices is good if that leads to increase in supply which then pushes prices down. It's bad if it leads to no added quantity and inequality (unfairness) in allocation/distribution.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    The same thing would have happened with high prices for generators. It might not have been this particular guy, but someone would have done the same thing, regardless of the price of the generators. The price only gates off who can do such a thing. > Rising prices bring in supply. Supply chains are not so flexible that they can react appropriately to such sudden spikes in demand, no matter the price set. See the recent debacle around video cards and crypto currencies. The insanely high prices set by first party suppliers couldn't stop them from being constantly sold out. It also didn't result in increased production of video cards, since the companies (correctly) predicted that the demand would not last. Prices were never driven down below their pre-crypto levels. In the end, the only effect is that an average person was unable to obtain a video card at an affordable price for a year or so.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> if you dont raise prices the water will likely run out because people who didnt really need it were buying it just because. I think one of the true challenges in front of us is figuring out a way one can signal how much they truly need something in a trustworthy, reliable way, without having to burn their own resources. Because that's what your answer is - prioritizing the need by checking who can afford to burn the most money. It's not paying for water, it's paying for a place on an ordinal scale.
darkerside 7y ago
This is a great and interesting point, but it's very misleading in this case. The pharma exec isn't making the argument you describe in any way. In fact, he claims he is being misquoted, which is either true or a backtrack, and that while "morality" was discussed in the conversation, he never claimed raising prices was moral.
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  >In fact, he claims he is being misquoted TFA says he says this, but it looks like PR spin to me. He is refuting the word choice, but his underlying point is the same. "Mulye went on to say he "nearly went bankrupt" twice and that he lost money after buying a plant in Ohio, which he said employs just under 100 people. " "Is it moral for me to lose money?" Mulye asked. "If I don't make money, then I can't create those jobs. And where does the money go when I make it? It goes back into research and hiring new people right here in the US."
  - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
    > And where does the money go when I make it? It goes back into research and hiring new people right here in the US." Probably closer to the truth that it goes to shareholders, but, okay.
  - darkerside 7y ago
    You're likely right that it's PR spin, but the answer for that is responding to the spin, not ignoring the content of the article like many comments were doing at the time.
overthemoon 7y ago
You see, if you really think about it, people doing heinous things to take advantage of the desperate and needy are really good, and you should be grateful.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  I had no idea Megan McArdle was an HN reader! Welcome, Megan!
JustSomeNobody 7y ago
> is that if you don't raise prices the water will likely run out because people who didn't really need it were buying it just because. Happens here in FL every ... single ... time ... a hurricane or TS comes. Gas too. People start filling 5 and 10 gallon drums. Nothing like a natural disaster to bring out true selfishness. Of course, on the flip side, there's nothing like a natural disaster to bring out true selflessness, either.
clawedjird 7y ago
> I feel like people who find headlines like this repulsive have never dealt with complex moral issues or taken a moral philosophy class. As someone who’s taken a moral philosophy class, this sounded a bit like, “people who disagree with my perspective are simple-minded.” While I don’t think people should generally be forming strong opinions based on headlines, the CEO in question failed to provide any real justification for his bold claim. Given that the interests of pharma executives differ from those of the general public, there’s no reason such a statement should escape scrutiny.
- turc1656 7y ago
  That's not how I took that sentence. I read that to mean that a lot of people like to treat many things as black and white and have the approach of "if you disagree with me you are not as virtuous as I am", which is what we see a lot of on Twitter and other social media. I think OP is trying to say that complex issues aren't clear cut when it comes to morality.
  - clawedjird 7y ago
    I agree with what you're saying here, but the OP seemed to be going further than you are. I may have misinterpreted their intentions, but it seemed like they were holding the pharma exec to a different standard than his detractors. The pharma exec in the article wasn't saying, "Please understand, this is a complex issue that shouldn't be considered in black and white terms." He said, using his own black-and-white thinking, (essentially) that he was virtuous for raising the price of the drug in question, claiming the moral high ground for himself. That's why his statement was so controversial. The OP seemed to accept everything the pharma exec said at face value (seemingly, by virtue of his position as a pharma exec), while implying that the general public (at least those who were upset by the situation in question, and presumably not also experienced pharma execs) was incapable of complex thought regarding moral issues. To me, anyway, it sounded more like they were saying, "this guy's right and all you angry folks shouldn't be so simple-minded" than "hey, let's be reasonable here." Of course, I could be completely misconstruing the OP's point. I'm not on any social media, and I generally shy away from the 24-hour "news" cycle, so I'm probably less sensitive to so-called outrage culture than most...
JaimeThompson 7y ago
How many US nuclear craft have 22 year old captains?
whack 7y ago
> I feel like people who find headlines like this repulsive have never dealt with complex moral issues or taken a moral philosophy class. I would go one step further. Most people don't have any unified framework at all for making moral decisions. It is mostly a disparate patchwork of religious parables, quotations from famous historical figures, and the laws/constitution of the country they live in. All mixed together with their "gut feelings" that ultimately decides which of the above sometimes contradictory principles should take precedence under a given scenario. For instance, most people would read the above headline and declare that life is sacrosanct and should take precedence over greed every time. And then you ask them how they would morally justify spending $10k on travel expenses or eating out, when they can instead use that money to save a human life - and I've yet to hear someone give a good answer to that question. I know philosophy students who have literally decided that "there's no such thing as morality", because figuring it out seems completely impossible. I think that's the wrong approach. As difficult and unappealing as it may seem, I think it behooves us to find and practice a consistent and comprehensive moral framework. The one I believe and endorse is Utilitarianism, as controversial as that may be. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I at least hope they will try to find their own answer.
TheNorthman 7y ago
I feel like people who say this have only taken one moral philosophy class and then think they get to gate-keep the general concept of morality. > "Moral" is a subtly toxic word because it has some vague equivalence with being nice Words have different meanings. Morality isn't a homogeneous thing and differs among people. It's entirely possible to have a moral philosophy that allows you to be nice _to the world_. This is exactly the Kantian outlook: "will[ing] that [actions] should become a universal law". Using your example: Getting the sailor in trouble wouldn't be alright. You would be treating him as a means to an end. That is, you're treating him as a mean to your own salvation, rather than his. So the "moral" thing wouldn't be to simply snitch, because you would get stitches. You should help to ensure that 1) He feels guilt[0] and 2) His family doesn't endure unnecessary pain[1]. [0]: Anything else would be treating him as a means to an end, e.g rehabilitation (the alleged good of the criminal) or deterrence (alleged good to society). [1]: Anything else would be treating them as a means to an end (his punishment).
loopz 7y ago
There are always options, like rationing food and water, which is what you do instead of letting multibillionaires with printed currency buy it all out of the ground leaving nothing left.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

magicalist 7y ago

> For a more direct comparison.... The answer, that requires you to turn away people seeking clean water, is that if you dont raise prices the water will likely run out because people who didnt really need it were buying it just because. I mean the guy literally says why they're doing it (there's available needy-people margin to cash in on), and it's not to ensure they don't run out of a limited supply. But keep carrying that water for them for free if you want, I guess.

kryogen1c 7y ago
>there's available needy-people margin to cash in on he does not say this, and i dont think thats a reasonable interpretation. >But keep carrying that water for them for free if you want, I guess. i dont know what this means.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

goalieca 7y ago

Pricing doesn’t fix the scarcity problem in a shortage or short term emergency. Rationing is the best way to address it.

bhickey 7y ago
Except it does. There was a shortage of generators after Katrina. A guy filled a U-Haul with generators and trucked them into the disaster area to resell at a markup. He was arrested for his trouble. Everyone in the situation was made worse off. Rising prices bring in supply. Rationing encourages over consumption and black market trade -- if there's a price ceiling you better believe I'm going to max out my gasoline ration whether I need it or not.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Rich people's lives aren't worth more than than poor people's lives
  - bhickey 7y ago
    I never said they were. I said that high prices attract supply. This supply then drives down prices. This doesn't work for drug pricing due to monopolies. It does work for hauling water into a city on an 18-wheeler.
    - loopz 7y ago
      Scarcity, crisis, war. Good for filling someone's pockets. Follow The Money.
- pas 7y ago
  Raising prices is good if that leads to increase in supply which then pushes prices down. It's bad if it leads to no added quantity and inequality (unfairness) in allocation/distribution.
- falcolas 7y ago
  The same thing would have happened with high prices for generators. It might not have been this particular guy, but someone would have done the same thing, regardless of the price of the generators. The price only gates off who can do such a thing. > Rising prices bring in supply. Supply chains are not so flexible that they can react appropriately to such sudden spikes in demand, no matter the price set. See the recent debacle around video cards and crypto currencies. The insanely high prices set by first party suppliers couldn't stop them from being constantly sold out. It also didn't result in increased production of video cards, since the companies (correctly) predicted that the demand would not last. Prices were never driven down below their pre-crypto levels. In the end, the only effect is that an average person was unable to obtain a video card at an affordable price for a year or so.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> if you dont raise prices the water will likely run out because people who didnt really need it were buying it just because. I think one of the true challenges in front of us is figuring out a way one can signal how much they truly need something in a trustworthy, reliable way, without having to burn their own resources. Because that's what your answer is - prioritizing the need by checking who can afford to burn the most money. It's not paying for water, it's paying for a place on an ordinal scale.

darkerside 7y ago

This is a great and interesting point, but it's very misleading in this case. The pharma exec isn't making the argument you describe in any way. In fact, he claims he is being misquoted, which is either true or a backtrack, and that while "morality" was discussed in the conversation, he never claimed raising prices was moral.

kryogen1c 7y ago
>In fact, he claims he is being misquoted TFA says he says this, but it looks like PR spin to me. He is refuting the word choice, but his underlying point is the same. "Mulye went on to say he "nearly went bankrupt" twice and that he lost money after buying a plant in Ohio, which he said employs just under 100 people. " "Is it moral for me to lose money?" Mulye asked. "If I don't make money, then I can't create those jobs. And where does the money go when I make it? It goes back into research and hiring new people right here in the US."
- JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  > And where does the money go when I make it? It goes back into research and hiring new people right here in the US." Probably closer to the truth that it goes to shareholders, but, okay.
- darkerside 7y ago
  You're likely right that it's PR spin, but the answer for that is responding to the spin, not ignoring the content of the article like many comments were doing at the time.

overthemoon 7y ago

You see, if you really think about it, people doing heinous things to take advantage of the desperate and needy are really good, and you should be grateful.

smacktoward 7y ago
I had no idea Megan McArdle was an HN reader! Welcome, Megan!

JustSomeNobody 7y ago

> is that if you don't raise prices the water will likely run out because people who didn't really need it were buying it just because. Happens here in FL every ... single ... time ... a hurricane or TS comes. Gas too. People start filling 5 and 10 gallon drums. Nothing like a natural disaster to bring out true selfishness. Of course, on the flip side, there's nothing like a natural disaster to bring out true selflessness, either.

clawedjird 7y ago

> I feel like people who find headlines like this repulsive have never dealt with complex moral issues or taken a moral philosophy class. As someone who’s taken a moral philosophy class, this sounded a bit like, “people who disagree with my perspective are simple-minded.” While I don’t think people should generally be forming strong opinions based on headlines, the CEO in question failed to provide any real justification for his bold claim. Given that the interests of pharma executives differ from those of the general public, there’s no reason such a statement should escape scrutiny.

turc1656 7y ago
That's not how I took that sentence. I read that to mean that a lot of people like to treat many things as black and white and have the approach of "if you disagree with me you are not as virtuous as I am", which is what we see a lot of on Twitter and other social media. I think OP is trying to say that complex issues aren't clear cut when it comes to morality.
- clawedjird 7y ago
  I agree with what you're saying here, but the OP seemed to be going further than you are. I may have misinterpreted their intentions, but it seemed like they were holding the pharma exec to a different standard than his detractors. The pharma exec in the article wasn't saying, "Please understand, this is a complex issue that shouldn't be considered in black and white terms." He said, using his own black-and-white thinking, (essentially) that he was virtuous for raising the price of the drug in question, claiming the moral high ground for himself. That's why his statement was so controversial. The OP seemed to accept everything the pharma exec said at face value (seemingly, by virtue of his position as a pharma exec), while implying that the general public (at least those who were upset by the situation in question, and presumably not also experienced pharma execs) was incapable of complex thought regarding moral issues. To me, anyway, it sounded more like they were saying, "this guy's right and all you angry folks shouldn't be so simple-minded" than "hey, let's be reasonable here." Of course, I could be completely misconstruing the OP's point. I'm not on any social media, and I generally shy away from the 24-hour "news" cycle, so I'm probably less sensitive to so-called outrage culture than most...

JaimeThompson 7y ago

How many US nuclear craft have 22 year old captains?

whack 7y ago

> I feel like people who find headlines like this repulsive have never dealt with complex moral issues or taken a moral philosophy class. I would go one step further. Most people don't have any unified framework at all for making moral decisions. It is mostly a disparate patchwork of religious parables, quotations from famous historical figures, and the laws/constitution of the country they live in. All mixed together with their "gut feelings" that ultimately decides which of the above sometimes contradictory principles should take precedence under a given scenario. For instance, most people would read the above headline and declare that life is sacrosanct and should take precedence over greed every time. And then you ask them how they would morally justify spending $10k on travel expenses or eating out, when they can instead use that money to save a human life - and I've yet to hear someone give a good answer to that question. I know philosophy students who have literally decided that "there's no such thing as morality", because figuring it out seems completely impossible. I think that's the wrong approach. As difficult and unappealing as it may seem, I think it behooves us to find and practice a consistent and comprehensive moral framework. The one I believe and endorse is Utilitarianism, as controversial as that may be. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I at least hope they will try to find their own answer.

TheNorthman 7y ago

I feel like people who say this have only taken one moral philosophy class and then think they get to gate-keep the general concept of morality. > "Moral" is a subtly toxic word because it has some vague equivalence with being nice Words have different meanings. Morality isn't a homogeneous thing and differs among people. It's entirely possible to have a moral philosophy that allows you to be nice _to the world_. This is exactly the Kantian outlook: "will[ing] that [actions] should become a universal law". Using your example: Getting the sailor in trouble wouldn't be alright. You would be treating him as a means to an end. That is, you're treating him as a mean to your own salvation, rather than his. So the "moral" thing wouldn't be to simply snitch, because you would get stitches. You should help to ensure that 1) He feels guilt[0] and 2) His family doesn't endure unnecessary pain[1]. [0]: Anything else would be treating him as a means to an end, e.g rehabilitation (the alleged good of the criminal) or deterrence (alleged good to society). [1]: Anything else would be treating them as a means to an end (his punishment).

loopz 7y ago

There are always options, like rationing food and water, which is what you do instead of letting multibillionaires with printed currency buy it all out of the ground leaving nothing left.