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

Many thanks to the Con team. ===Rebuttals=== R3: Supply and Demand It is fair to say that the current system does not incentivize competition to the same degree as a free market would, but we hold that competition will be fostered by Turing’s decision, no matter how much more would be fostered in a free market. There is still utility being created. Since we have established previously that Turing owes no obligation to anyone to provide access to medication, any utility created by Turing does not merely erase their debts, but rather affirms the unnecessary good they are doing. ===Defense=== C1: Stakeholder Our opponents clearly ignore the functions of our rebuttals. They challenge the assertion that Turing is actively harming people who need the medication (even though we do not need to do so, since we have shown that, even if Turing was restricting the flow of medication, nothing would be wrong with that), and, as such, whether insurance should or should not exist, or other related concerns, are irrelevant. They then say that we have not addressed the percentage of people who need the medication. This is wholly false. Turing gives the medicine out to those who cannot afford it. If this is true, there is no problem with the price, for no one has to go without the medication in any case. Again, our opponents haven’t provided any justification for ignoring the main point of this argument. My opponents then say that “the free market … has failed to do its job”. Does this not contradict his arguments that the US is not a free market? How can that which exists only in part be blamed for the overall situation of the nation? This is also the first time they have brought up the point about the rights of businesses vs. the rights of individuals. The answer is simple: since a business is just a coalition of individuals exercising their individual bodily autonomy, the business has the same rights as those who comprise it. Thus, there is no problem here. C2: Market Monopoly Our opponents fundamentally misunderstand the point we have made here. The argument was that, since, in a free market, Turing’s actions would have been allowable (which I assume, from what our opponents has said so far, that they would concede), and since the situation now was imposed by an outside entity, their actions are still allowable. There is no factor in Turing’s control which would make the action moral in the one case and immoral in the present, and, since force cannot change moral standards, Turing has done nothing wrong, whether or not they would have done the same thing in a totally free market. Again, what Turing did would have been acceptable in a free market, and what is acceptable in a free market is acceptable generally, so therefore what Turing did is acceptable now. C3: Ethic of Care We have conclusively shown that the framework our opponents are using to weigh impacts must be thrown out. They have offered no defense of their moral system; we have. Thus, we must win the debate. ===Rebuttals=== R1: Capitalism and Freedom. First, our opponents say that affirming property rights implies the right to own other humans as property. This is patently ridiculous – if humans have property rights (as I have said, this is the fundamental principle of capitalism), then they have the rights to their freedoms. If an action would violate a right, then that action cannot be a right in itself; thus, when one talks about property rights, one never includes the right to deny property rights. This would be a contradiction in terms, and I sincerely doubt my opponent believes that it holds true. Second, let me quote my opponent: “Here the government intervenes in the insurance industry, which then transitions it to a mixed system.” Here, he admits that a government can be “mixed” – it can have capitalistic and non-capitalistic aspects. If this is true, then it follows that it can be true for, say, Chile, to also have had capitalistic and non-capitalistic aspects. The former include the relative freedom of trade and privatization; the latter, Pinochet’s dictatorship and violation of human rights. The same holds for pre-Abolition America. These rights violations are to be blamed on everything that is not capitalistic, for capitalism cannot coexist, in pure form, with them. Slavery does not “completely fit” my definition of capitalism, and we beg the reader to seek out that definition and see for themselves. ===CONCLUSION=== We have shown the validity and soundness of the following argument: Property rights are foundational; without property rights, “ought”/normative claims have no meaning. EthicalJust systems must respect property rights, for, if not, one could not advocate them. The logical entailment of property rights is capitalism. Systems entailed by ethical principles are, themselves, ethical. That which is done in a ethical system is ethical. Turing would have been morally permitted to raise the price of Daraprim under capitalism (via property rights). Conclusion: Raising the price of Daraprim was ethical. Our opponents have not even begun to tackle this. Q.E.D.