Not this: You are arguing that the obligation to releave the hardships of the poor falls narrowly, landing on the shoulders of those who provide the goods to t

Not this: You are arguing that the obligation to releave the hardships of the poor falls narrowly, landing on the shoulders of those who provide the goods to the poor. Your argument would show that if a cripple is unable to afford a wheel chair, then the wheel chair maker must reach into his own pocket to pay poor relief. Your argument would show that it is the greed of the bricklayer and the roofer that is to blame for homelessness. But this: I want a wheelchair but can't afford one from the legitimate supplier. I know how to make one myself and have all the tools and materials at hand. I've made a good-faith attempt to negotiate a hardship discount with the legitimate supplier and have been spurned; failure to get a wheelchair means I'll die soon. In this circumstance I think it is moral to make a wheelchair for myself using my own tools and materials. Even more precisely, the scenario (with India vs rest of world) is pretty much: - GSK et al would like India to crack down on offlabel pharma shops - India clearly prefers letting offlabel pharma companies operate ...and neither on their own can force the other other to stop what they're doing, which is why each party: - GSK et al - India (and other countries in similar boats) ...are appealing to the rest of the world for sympathy and support; each of these entities has valid moral claims on their position, so how is one to decide which claim is more justified? I've argued my position. You're arguing against a different position than I took (or really, drawing false generalizations that I don't hold and then taking me to task for holding those positions, which I only hold in your imagination; if you want to talk to yourself count me out of it).