Turing Pharmaceuticals' decision to substantially increase the price of Daraprim was ethical

Thanks to the CON team for the debate. 1. Capitalism and Freedom It seems clear that, if a system is ethical, so too are the actions it permits. If an ethical system allows unethical actions, there are no grounds for calling it ethical. This being granted, it follows that, if the system which allowed Turing’s actions was ethical, Turing need not give any apologies whatsoever. That system is laissez-faire capitalism [laissez-faire is implied with every usage of the word]. Note: while the United States is not purely capitalistic, it is the capitalistic elements within which allowed Turing to raise the price of Daraprim. Anything else is irrelevant. What is capitalism? Capitalism is the system in which individuals are given the right to pursue their own happiness through the exercise of their right to property - property over the self and over the fruits of the self’s labour. It is commonly heard that anti-capitalists “have empathy.” Consider what a system of an “anti-capitalist” would look like. A system in which people are not allowed autonomy. The questions become pressing, one after another: What empathy is there in eroding personal freedoms? In creating slaves and masters? In human bondage? The anti-capitalist has no answers. Milton Friedman is wise: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” [1] The buck stops here: if an individual is not allowed to own the products of his labour, he does not fully own his body, and no excuse or equivocation can hide what anti-capitalists advocate. Friedman speaks again: A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it … gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. [2] If Turing acquired, through free trade, the money, and then the rights to Daraprim, there is an unbroken chain from the birth of each individual involved of non-coercive (actual coercion distinguished by its use of physical force or fraud) actions. To say that their actions ought not be done is to say that, no matter how non-coercive and rights-respecting one is, one is still beholden to others; one is subjugated. This is indefensible. The essence of this point: for Turing’s decision to be unethical, it would have to be argued that capitalism itself is unethical and therefore should be abandoned. This is a monumental claim that requires monumental evidence to prove; my opponent would have to disprove the notion that self-ownership is the foundation of morality (which we will show later), and the inductive defence of capitalism that only takes looking at the obvious increases in virtually all quality-of-life metrics since its origination to grasp. If self-ownership, as established in this round, is not refuted, the PRO team wins by default. 2. Self-Ownership and Self-Interest as the Prerequisites of Ethics Ethics governs what one should and should not do. As such, the non-voluntary has no bearing on ethics; “what one should do” is only relevant if one can do otherwise. It is only in matters of choice that ethics comes into view. What is the fundamental prerequisite of choice? Bodily autonomy. One must first be able to physically survive to worry about abstract ethical quandaries. To survive, one has to exercise his corporeal nature; he has to sow the seed, catch the fish, and so on. If one survives on passivity, he does so solely by the action of another, and, since this other should not be privileged arbitrarily, the only conclusion is that pure freedom must be ethical, and negating that freedom must be unethical. Ayn Rand, the succulent idol, identifies the nature of altruism: When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. [3] What morality is in this? 3. Supply and Demand By raising the price of Daraprim so extravagantly, Turing has ensured that the demand for alternatives explode. This will necessarily lead to other pharmaceutical companies investing in the research of new, better, and cheaper drugs. In effect, Turing has ensured that more people will have access to treatment, a wider range of drugs to choose from, and the lessening of the downfalls of Daraprim itself. We would like to end with the words of noted medical malpractice lawyer Airmax1227. He says: Ultimately, I don't take the position that the pharmaceutical company that owns the drug is doing anything wrong. It's obligation is to its employees and its share holders. It's not a charity, and while we can look at this case and say something is wrong with it, I don't think it's worth treating all companies like they owe the public something for free (or less than whatever they feel like charging) because there are cases like these. [4] [1] Friedman, Interview (The Open Mind) [2] Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom [3] Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal [4] http://www.debate.org...