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 we

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...