Recently the internet was set ablaze after Martin Shkreli, CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, raised the price of an HIV medication fifty times over. The move was criticized by people from all spheres including political figures such as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and others in the pharmaceutical industry. Despite the massive backlash Shkreli defended his decision, claiming that his move was simply the result of capitalism and was necessary to facilitate further pharmaceutical development.
The arc of Shkreli as villain reached its conclusion on Dec. 17th as Shkreli was arrested by the FBI for securities fraud. The arrest is predicated on the claim that during his time as a hedge-fund manager Shkreli ran a ponzi scheme in which he defrauded many of his investors.
(Shkreli leaving court)
While it's very satisfying to think of Shkreli's actions as inherently evil are they perhaps the result of something else? Are Shkreli's actions the result of, as Neff discusses, a culture of risk in which making risky decisions is considered a virtue? Is Shkreli simply one greedy and immoral individual, an isolated case? Or is he the product of American Dream style capitalism in which money must be made by any means necessary, even if that's stealing from the sick to give to the rich?
It is definitely satisfying to think of him as inherently evil, but I suppose he was simply being a capitalist in a capitalist world. Marx would describe this as exploiting labour and accumulating capital. However, when you're being criticized by Trump, a huge affluent capitalist, something is ethically very wrong. I suppose you could support he was intending for high risk, high reward payout such as many men do on wall street, but at the cost of peoples health seems to be too great of a risk. I do not think this is virtuous because instead of risking himself, he risked the lives of people who are sick with HIV and cannot afford treatment.
ReplyDelete