Quote:
Originally posted by Tobiasly
So now we're talking about lives. This very day, in some developing country, one person died because he didn't have the food, medicine, and shelter he needed for survival. The $800 you spent on your computer could have saved that one life. Is his life worth your own advancement? People who could have "saved millions of lives" but didn't are greedy and evil, but because you could have only saved one and didn't, that's OK?
In case you don't see the broader argument I'm making here, you have no basis for making an arbitrary judgment as to what is a "moral" or "empathetic" (is that a word?) amount of money to have, and what isn't. Because it's just that: arbitrary. I don't have the inclination to look up the figures right now, but I'd be willing to bet that rich people as a group give a far higher percentage of their income to charity than the middle class.
Sure, Mr. Drug Company Owner has millions upon millions today. What if tomorrow, he gets hit with a liability lawsuit that could cost him everything? What if his competitor finds a far cheaper way of producing his best-selling drug?
For whatever reason he decides that he wants to keep that money, he has that right, because he earned it. Maybe that makes him an asshole, but as Dennis Leary taught us, being an asshole is every person's right.
|
It's a judgement call. It comes down to the person doing the right thing. Of course we can't create laws that take away money from those who earn it (yes we can tax but I won't go into that), and there is no true altruism in the world. Take me for example, yes the money I spent on this computer could have gone to save the life of someone poor, but then I would be putting myself at a great disadvantage by not being able to compete and advance myself. But the fat cat drug company CEO who earns tens of millions per year for his own gain is a complete waste of money. If Mr. Fat Cat CEO did not receive his millions, would he be disadvantaged? No. Much of the capitalism we see today is just making the rich richer. There is also no way to specifically define an amount or a way to draw a line. But you must be able to see somewhat of a line betwen greed and an honourable return. Again, it's a situation judgement call, and that is a problem we currently have with intellectual property rights because each case is unique, and society is not better off with the system we currently have that treats each case with the same process.
Also, this company CEO would not get hit with the lawsuit because he is behind the corporate veil. That's the whole basis for having a corporate entity. The millions he is paid by the company is not subject to a lawsuit unless there is proof that his actions were fraudulant, or there is a gross misconduct etc. etc. Something with intent basically. So I'm sorry I don't buy that argument. Now if the company could justify keeping a huge amount like that around, which most do, then I have absolutely no problem with that.
Drug companies have patents on their drugs which grants them a monopoly for a certain amount of time. Eventually competitors do find ways of producing the drug cheaper, but usually they use same process after the patent runs out, it's just they do not have the monopoly right to it so they do not charge as much.
I'm not arguing that person has a right to that money. This is completely an ethical and moral issue. Laws will not solve this problem, it will come down to education and public pressure.
Oh, and by the way, Dennis Leary is not exactly the guy we need to turn to in order to solve a problem. I'll choose Immanuel Kant to guide my decisions.
PS - Empathetic is a word