7 ms·
The moral calculus here is so obvious you have to have your head screwed-on sideways not to see it. Let's reduce it to the level of individual decisions. I ha
by frig 17y ago
The moral calculus here is so obvious you have to have your head screwed-on sideways not to see it.
Let's reduce it to the level of individual decisions.
I have a terminal disease.
"Pharma Joe" invented a recipe for substance S that will cure my disease; there's no known cure for my disease at this time other than substance S.
My options are:
(i) try to negotiate with Joe to get his permission to make a batch of substance S, thereby continuing to live
(ii) use publicly-available information to make a batch of substance S, thereby continuing to live
(iii) not acquiring substance S, thereby resigning myself to die soon
Joe would prefer that I choose (i) or (iii); I prefer options (i) or (ii).
When we can arrive at an agreeable (i) there's not much to talk about; things are only interesting when Joe wants me to pick option (iii) and I want option (ii).
What is Joe's argument for why I ought to pick (iii) instead of (i)? It amounts to:
- sure, you could save your own life by making a batch of S
- but if you do that then I won't keep inventing substances like S, and thus in the future some other person will have a disease for which there is no cure, b/c Joe's retargeted his research to penis pills
- so the right thing to do is to go off in a corner and die (and quietly, please), so that someone else in the future might live
It's not surprising that this is spectacularly unconvincing on two levels:
- Joe's asking someone to choose to die so someone else might benefit at some point in the future; aside the usual aversion to Christ-like self-sacrifice on the part of individuals, it's more than a little cheeky of Joe to insist on my making such an extreme sacrifice for the greater good when Joe himself is unwilling to make a lesser sacrifice (reduced profits) for the greater good (we know he's unwilling to do this b/c we were unable to arrive at a mutually-satisfactory arrangement in (i), like selling at prices the about-to-be deceased can afford)
- it's also unconvincing because the real "future proposition" isn't "I die but Joe invents substance T that cures some other disease saving other people's lives"; it's "Joe invents substance T that could cure some other disease but then some other schmuck is going to be in the same position of being unable to afford it and having this same conversation; my death just kicks the can down the road"
...and thus most international agreements that allow Joe color of law to enforce (iii) for "the greater good (of Joe)" have been agreed to as riders on larger treaties and whatnot, making it unsurprising that impoverished countries with disease epidemics try to wiggle around such terms as much as possible.
It's of course absolutely the case that widespread choice of (ii) does disincentivize further research on drugs targeting problems (ii)-choosing populations opt for; it's not like the people making these decisions don't understand the consequences...they've weighed the pros and cons and decided that the best option (unsurprisingly) is to put their lives ahead of someone else's intellectual property and deal with the fallout as it comes.
Even if you really think you'd put someone else's IP ahead of your life -- which I doubt you would, if it ever came to that -- it's not Joe's place to decide that I ought to die for the greater good.
- anatoly 17y agoI think the weakness in your analysis is that it's framed as a conflict between you and Joe. Joe isn't really trying to force you to do anything. Given that Jim is already making substance S without Joe's permission and selling it to you and others like you, Joe is not claiming that it's immoral or wrong of you to buy Jim's product. Joe is trying to make Bob, who's the head honcho where you and Jim live, to force Jim to make nice with Joe and only sell substance S after obtaining Joe's permission to do so. The extra layers of indirection are essential, because while everyone would agree that it's logical and reasonable for you to prefer buying Jim's product to dying (this being your point), it isn't at all clear that Bob ought to agree with that. Bob is supposed to represent not just your interests, but also interests of all other people in the area. It's conceivable that a lot of them will die much sooner if Joe switches to penis pills, than if Joe didn't and continued to develop life-saving drugs. It's fine for you to decide to put your life first and deal with the fallout as it comes; do you have an argument as to why Bob ought to do the same?
- mcantelon 17y agoIf Joe gives permission to Jim to make the drugs, then it lends legitimacy to Jim's drugs which may lead people to buy them that might otherwise buy direct from Joe.
- frig 17y agoIt is a little weak sticking with the individuals. But look at Bob's incentives: If you're Bob -- the duly-elected representative of the people's republic of west brokistan -- then you've got the following calculation: - either you let Jim keep turning out off-brand tamiflu and (hypothetically) thereby saving hundred-k to millions of lives ("didn't mess with a good thing") - or you shut Jim down, then have the fun task of explaining to your constituents that it's really better that they no longer be able to afford those drugs ...at which point either: - Bob uses an argument like Joe's argument; this isn't going to be convincing to the public @ large b/c: -- if they were buying Jim's stuff and now they can't the same counter-arguments as in the individual case applies -- if they weren't buying Jim's stuff they now can't if they need it in the future -- additionally Bob is taking away local industry and local autonomy so on in favor of foreign interests (which rarely fares well in any country) ...which is awesome for getting reelected; or maybe Bob tries the realpolitik strategy and explains: - oh sorry I couldn't negotiate a good (i) option which is why we're forced picking between (ii) and (iii) - oh but also sorry (oh, so very sorry) we can't pick (ii) even though we'd like to b/c doing so risks some terribly nasty trade sanctions that we just can't afford right now ...which is honest but makes Bob look so completely useless I wouldn't like Bob's re-election odds with this approach, either. So I think given the incentives Bob's likely choices are obvious, assuming he's an elected official of some sort; a more dictatorial head honcho might make a different decision. Whether someone more free to take a stab at long-term utility maximization ought to let Jim keep operating or not is pretty much a function of trade sanctions and so on first and only after that some calculation about "what amount of drugs will we be able to buy in the future that cover what % of what conditions will be significant in the future"?