3 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 someone who’s take

> 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...
goatinaboat 7y ago
the CEO in question failed to provide any real justification for his bold claim Actually, per the article, he justifies by the jobs he provides and the research his company does. That may or may not be true of course, but he does say it.
- clawedjird 7y ago
  Well, yeah, I meant actually justify it. Anyone can throw together a few vague, semi-plausible sentences in the name of damage control. I'm not even saying the pharma exec is wrong for what he did, but he clearly hired his employees and conducted research before jacking up the price of a drug that was approved by the FDA before he was born, so...

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...

goatinaboat 7y ago

the CEO in question failed to provide any real justification for his bold claim Actually, per the article, he justifies by the jobs he provides and the research his company does. That may or may not be true of course, but he does say it.

clawedjird 7y ago
Well, yeah, I meant actually justify it. Anyone can throw together a few vague, semi-plausible sentences in the name of damage control. I'm not even saying the pharma exec is wrong for what he did, but he clearly hired his employees and conducted research before jacking up the price of a drug that was approved by the FDA before he was born, so...