> Yes, the company that actively prevents people from obtaining life-saving medicine for billions extra in profit is more reprehensible than the company that makes no pretenses about having anything to do with life and death.
So the moral impact of a company's actions depends not on the net good done by that company, but on the "pretenses" it does or does not put on? It's morally better to waste natural resources on frivolities like new iPhones every year, instead of saving some lives (but not all)?
And if it's morally reprehensible to not save a life when you have the power to do so, aren't all of Apple's customers morally reprehensible for buying iPhones? That money could literally save the life of someone in the world that lacks basic necessities.
> And if it's morally reprehensible to not save a life when you have the power to do so, aren't all of Apple's customers morally reprehensible for buying iPhones? That money could literally save the life of someone in the world that lacks basic necessities.
No, the decision to make billions extra in profits on top of the billions they would already be making at the cost of millions of lives is still definitely more reprehensible than someone spending a few hundred dollars more than they otherwise would on an essential device that provides information, communication and entertainment instead of giving it to someone less fortunate.
Apple made $18 billion in profits last quarter. For half of that, they could have saved 2.7 million people from dying of malaria. In one quarter alone.[1] Apple's customers spent about $45 billion on iPhones last quarter. If they had gotten Android phones for half the price (which still provide essential information and communications), they could have saved 5 million children by investing in children's health programs.[2]
If it's reprehensible to have the means to save a life and not do so, then Apple and its customers are reprehensible. This is the natural consequence of your reasoning. The only distinction you can make between Gilead and Apple is that Gilead invented the means of saving lives, while Apple would have to pay someone else to do so. But how on earth does that count against Gilead? Why is Gilead evil for making profits when they could save lives by giving away Sovaldi, when Apple could just as easily save lives by buying Sovaldi for those who need it?
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Your argument is totally valid economically, but I'm arguing the morality of it. I certainly don't think all companies and consumers should be providing every surplus dollar to helping others.
If this were a free market system where competition has resulted in $84k being the price at which it makes sense to produce then so be it. Instead, the company can lobby to make sure the government, who we both agree should be involved here for the public good, never gets involved and buy out any company that challenges its monopoly. Then, it can take advantage of global markets for additional profits, while the people who are actually dying can't and have two options - death or debt.
So the moral impact of a company's actions depends not on the net good done by that company, but on the "pretenses" it does or does not put on? It's morally better to waste natural resources on frivolities like new iPhones every year, instead of saving some lives (but not all)?
And if it's morally reprehensible to not save a life when you have the power to do so, aren't all of Apple's customers morally reprehensible for buying iPhones? That money could literally save the life of someone in the world that lacks basic necessities.