> The rise in price is the result of the market thinking there will be future rise in organic demand. In a disaster situation there won’t be a future rise in o

> The rise in price is the result of the market thinking there will be future rise in organic demand. In a disaster situation there won’t be a future rise in organic demand so the market has no incentive to actually adjust. Price gouging doesn’t change that. The only meaningful effect is that you’re either distributing finite resources by raffle or by ability to pay. (Or by ration ticket if your government has its shit together enough to set something like that up). I don’t know any ethical framework that thinks ability to pay is the optimal distribution scheme there. Kantians would opt for a raffle as it values people as ends in themselves rather than as money havers. Utilitarians would opt for a raffle as random chance is more likely to distribute goods to their most valued uses than distribution according to the wealthiest. Rawlsians would opt for a raffle because if you apply a veil of ignorance where nobody knows how much money they have before the situation starts, everyone would conclude the raffle is more fair.