50 ms·

While I certainly don't consider it moral to sell such an important drug for so much, governments don't possess the right to force any human to share any knowle

While I certainly don't consider it moral to sell such an important drug for so much, governments don't possess the right to force any human to share any knowledge they have developed. As horrible as it sounds, if I develop something, no one should be able to force me to share it (or not share it), especially with threat of force (whether direct or indirect). I'm not libertarian - just to nip that in the bud.

rurounijones 13y ago
I find the whole idea of dealing with this scenario in absolutes as iffy because you can almost always find a grey area. e.g. Bob has created a vaccine which, he has discovered accidentally, will prevent millions of people dying of X every year in Africa. He has also decided not to share how he made it because he hates black people. In this situation should humanity just accept his decision? Would force (or threat of) be justified on the basis that the end good outweighs the methods. Tricky, and I do not know the answer, but I do not think it can be a moral absolute.
- dTal 13y ago
  I don't think it's a moral question at all - I think it's a pragmatic one. We are presumably agreed that it would be a better world if Bob's vaccine were released to the world, regardless of what Bob thinks. The only question is, what's the best way of getting that to happen? Do we reward Bob for releasing it? Punish him for not releasing it? Hack his computer and nick his research? I think, morally, we'd be perfectly justified in doing all of these things to save millions of lives - the question of what do in the general case merely hinges on what's most effective, carefully considering second-order effects (for example, torturing Bob until he tells you the vaccine formula might work a treat the first time this happens, but next time somebody discovers a vaccine they're gonna keep quiet about it, which is harmful). Actually, I think a lot of political problems are caused by confusing pragmatic issues with moral ones. Patents (IP in general, really) are a great example, with "trade secrets are slowing the economy down, lets provide incentives for publishing them" mutating grossly into "inventors ought to be rewarded for their inventions, at any economic cost".
  - hardwaresofton 13y ago
    So I think a lot of people are misunderstanding -- I definitely recognize that it is a moral question in whether the greater populace is justified in doing those things. But I wanted to make it clear, that you shouldn't skip over the fact that the law making body may be trampling on a human right. It sure seems like a human right to be as shitty as you want. Or to be as left-leaning as you want. Or to be as conservative as you want. The problem is if the right Government is in place, all these things will either be controlled or suppressed. We're forced to do a lot of things in our society, but generally everyone takes a second to think about forcing people to think about things that step on rights.
- hardwaresofton 13y ago
  I would like to think that the ends do not justify the means... I could give a bunch of ridiculous, overblown examples, but means are pretty important (especially to the people who might be negatively effected)
Xylakant 13y ago
That's an interesting assertion, please elaborate: Why not? The government already forces you to do a lot of things for the greater good of the community. You're forced to pay taxes, you're forced to send your kids to school, you're forced to obey laws, in some countries you're forced to either join the army or do some sort of civil service. You're forced not to share your stash of heroin or your new production method of meth. You're forced not to spread your knowledge of building nuclear weapons. All of this already exists and is commonly accepted to be a net positive thing. So why can't a government force a company to cut the price of a drug that the company wants to sell. It's not like the company doesn't want to share the drug - they're just aware that this is effectively a monopoly since not other comparable treatment exists. People will pay any price they can afford. This is damaging society since it draws resources from the society to private investors. I don't think it's wrong that the government is asking for a justification - the drug might be extraordinarily expensive to produce, the pill is lined in gold and platinum and has hand-carved inscriptions on it, tailored to the patients need, ... You could also argue that it's good when the company gets to squeeze the market dry since that will encourage others to compete, but how would that benefit society if there's a lot of drugs that nobody can afford. Just as a thought experiment: What if Fleming, Chain and Florey kept the knowledge about penicillin and charged as much money as they could? Millions of people would have died.
- vixen99 13y ago
  If you force a company to cut the price of a drug you're sending a message to this and other drug companies - 'think carefully before you decide to embark on new research; the development of this promising product may not be in your employees'/shareholders' interests and you're not a charity'. I guess you're not considering forcing a drug company to manufacture a drug but where does this application of force end? Many would dispute that the examples you quote are net positive. You may know that NICE is a UK National Health Service committee that regularly votes out expensive drugs where cost/benefit analysis indicates that they cost too much. If they do then patients can pay privately (but I believe the drug would not be administered by the NHS - you have to pay for a re-diagnosis) or (as in reported cases) die. What is a life worth? Depends but it certainly has a fairly modest price attached to it much though we don't like to admit it.
pjc50 13y ago
.. but patent enforcement relies entirely on the use of "force" against infringers? So I take one of these pills and reverse-engineer it to produce "knowledge" of how to make it, would you prevent me "sharing" that? This is not a coherent philosophical position.
- hardwaresofton 13y ago
  I think you might have misunderstood somewhere -- no, they shouldn't prevent you from sharing it. Correct me if I'm wrong, butI think you're assuming patent enforcement, the patent system, and patents themselves are a good thing. I don't think that's true.The fact that you think you own an idea you thought of is unreasonable, given you cannot guarantee you are the first one to have it, or the last one to have it. Trade secrets make much more sense, if you don't want your secret recipe to get out, don't let it.

rurounijones 13y ago

I find the whole idea of dealing with this scenario in absolutes as iffy because you can almost always find a grey area. e.g. Bob has created a vaccine which, he has discovered accidentally, will prevent millions of people dying of X every year in Africa. He has also decided not to share how he made it because he hates black people. In this situation should humanity just accept his decision? Would force (or threat of) be justified on the basis that the end good outweighs the methods. Tricky, and I do not know the answer, but I do not think it can be a moral absolute.

dTal 13y ago
I don't think it's a moral question at all - I think it's a pragmatic one. We are presumably agreed that it would be a better world if Bob's vaccine were released to the world, regardless of what Bob thinks. The only question is, what's the best way of getting that to happen? Do we reward Bob for releasing it? Punish him for not releasing it? Hack his computer and nick his research? I think, morally, we'd be perfectly justified in doing all of these things to save millions of lives - the question of what do in the general case merely hinges on what's most effective, carefully considering second-order effects (for example, torturing Bob until he tells you the vaccine formula might work a treat the first time this happens, but next time somebody discovers a vaccine they're gonna keep quiet about it, which is harmful). Actually, I think a lot of political problems are caused by confusing pragmatic issues with moral ones. Patents (IP in general, really) are a great example, with "trade secrets are slowing the economy down, lets provide incentives for publishing them" mutating grossly into "inventors ought to be rewarded for their inventions, at any economic cost".
- hardwaresofton 13y ago
  So I think a lot of people are misunderstanding -- I definitely recognize that it is a moral question in whether the greater populace is justified in doing those things. But I wanted to make it clear, that you shouldn't skip over the fact that the law making body may be trampling on a human right. It sure seems like a human right to be as shitty as you want. Or to be as left-leaning as you want. Or to be as conservative as you want. The problem is if the right Government is in place, all these things will either be controlled or suppressed. We're forced to do a lot of things in our society, but generally everyone takes a second to think about forcing people to think about things that step on rights.
hardwaresofton 13y ago
I would like to think that the ends do not justify the means... I could give a bunch of ridiculous, overblown examples, but means are pretty important (especially to the people who might be negatively effected)

Xylakant 13y ago

That's an interesting assertion, please elaborate: Why not? The government already forces you to do a lot of things for the greater good of the community. You're forced to pay taxes, you're forced to send your kids to school, you're forced to obey laws, in some countries you're forced to either join the army or do some sort of civil service. You're forced not to share your stash of heroin or your new production method of meth. You're forced not to spread your knowledge of building nuclear weapons. All of this already exists and is commonly accepted to be a net positive thing. So why can't a government force a company to cut the price of a drug that the company wants to sell. It's not like the company doesn't want to share the drug - they're just aware that this is effectively a monopoly since not other comparable treatment exists. People will pay any price they can afford. This is damaging society since it draws resources from the society to private investors. I don't think it's wrong that the government is asking for a justification - the drug might be extraordinarily expensive to produce, the pill is lined in gold and platinum and has hand-carved inscriptions on it, tailored to the patients need, ... You could also argue that it's good when the company gets to squeeze the market dry since that will encourage others to compete, but how would that benefit society if there's a lot of drugs that nobody can afford. Just as a thought experiment: What if Fleming, Chain and Florey kept the knowledge about penicillin and charged as much money as they could? Millions of people would have died.

vixen99 13y ago
If you force a company to cut the price of a drug you're sending a message to this and other drug companies - 'think carefully before you decide to embark on new research; the development of this promising product may not be in your employees'/shareholders' interests and you're not a charity'. I guess you're not considering forcing a drug company to manufacture a drug but where does this application of force end? Many would dispute that the examples you quote are net positive. You may know that NICE is a UK National Health Service committee that regularly votes out expensive drugs where cost/benefit analysis indicates that they cost too much. If they do then patients can pay privately (but I believe the drug would not be administered by the NHS - you have to pay for a re-diagnosis) or (as in reported cases) die. What is a life worth? Depends but it certainly has a fairly modest price attached to it much though we don't like to admit it.

pjc50 13y ago

.. but patent enforcement relies entirely on the use of "force" against infringers? So I take one of these pills and reverse-engineer it to produce "knowledge" of how to make it, would you prevent me "sharing" that? This is not a coherent philosophical position.

hardwaresofton 13y ago
I think you might have misunderstood somewhere -- no, they shouldn't prevent you from sharing it. Correct me if I'm wrong, butI think you're assuming patent enforcement, the patent system, and patents themselves are a good thing. I don't think that's true.The fact that you think you own an idea you thought of is unreasonable, given you cannot guarantee you are the first one to have it, or the last one to have it. Trade secrets make much more sense, if you don't want your secret recipe to get out, don't let it.