agoodfella

I haven't read through all of the posts but it seems to me that there are several issues on multiple levels in the "AIDS Cure" scenario:

1) Is it "immoral" / "unethical" to try and profit from a cure where a majority of the sufferers (i.e. in Africa, India, etc.) have little to no wealth? Now this may be a somewhat of a grey area, but I'm gonna say "no" here - though I'm sure others may argue otherwise...

2) Is it "evil"? No... on the flip side to that question, are you being "good"? Again, no.

3) The issue of capitalism - I think its perfectly ok. Frankly, I believe that this would probably be the best way to distribute it - I believe that there would be enough "good" money out there to subsidize the purchase and distribution of the cure to those who were truly needy and poor (Bill Gates and Buffet's contribution combined would be a good first start and possibly the only stop you'd need to fill you coffers) - i.e. it would be a "win/win" scenario --> all of the global money earmarked for AIDS prevention and treatment could be siphoned into one single cure --> and you'd get paid....

Now of course, if you held out for every last little penny you could squeeze beyond a reasonable amount (say, 1 billion dollars or so) then maybe you'd be crossing into "evil" territory... I mean I'm all for making as much money as you can, but after a certain amount, it can get a little excessive.

emptypepsi

I agree, but only if we are to assume that one is selling it for excessive money for selfish reasons. How do we know bug is not selling it for a lot in order to break even from the money he put into research (only natural), as it were, or to fund research for Parkinsons, Cancer or other diseases without a cure?

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

http://www.politicsforumpoliticalwor...ion-forum-rule

superbug

Oh, so you are only good if you don't try and make money off of your work?

agoodfella

No that's not what I said or meant.

I asked the question, "is it evil"? and to that i responded, "no". However, on the flipside, i asked are you being "good" - i.e. would some people give it away for free? yeah some people would, and in my book those are "good" people.

but let's not confuse what i originally wrote - i don't think because you try to make money off of the cure necessarily makes one "bad". at the same time, you aren't going to be getting any "humanitarian" awards either, but somehow i don't think that this is what really matters to those people looking to maximize their profit - which again, is a perfectly fine objective IMO.

superbug

So why are they good if they give it away?
I'm trying to not assume here, are they bad if they sell it for what they can get for it (i.e. as much as the free market will allow)?
For that matter, we can apply this to any product, I just pulled the cure one out of my ass for this example, but it can be any product.

agoodfella

I do believe there is a very clear distinction between, say, a luxury item vs. a medicine that will save millions of lives (not to mention alleviate suffering as well collateral pain and anguish).

In other words, if one were to sell a mink coat, Ferrari, Gulfstream Jet, etc. for the maximum amount of money possible - I don't think that there would be much of an uproar because, simply put, not only is this target market relatively small, but perhaps more importantly, the ideal target market can easily afford it.

Conversely, the large majority of those with AIDS/HIV hail from 3rd world countries with little to no net wealth. Further, taking money out of the equation for a moment, an AIDS/HIV cure can save a life, whereas if that rich person doesn't get that Ferrari, it's hardly going to "kill" him.

So, as I said originally, there are a set of issues/questions on multiple levels, (e.g. morality, economics, capitalism, etc.)

To answer your question asked "why are they good if they give it away"? Because the simple fact of the matter is such a cure will save millions of lives. If someone were to give that away, they would qualify as an incredible humanitarian IMO (i.e. a "good" person). A lousy businessperson? Absolutely, but that is another question entirely.

See, I'm not understanding why you are trying to measure/link business savvy with a "moral" measuring stick ("good" or "bad") -> it's like trying to measure the temperature with legos (i.e. one doesn't really have anything to do with the other). You are either a "good" businessperson (i.e. can capitalize on opportunities, make lots of money) or you are a "bad" businessperson (i.e. you lose lots of money). I'm not sure what that has anything to do with being a "bad" or "good" person... To take an extreme example, let's look at a couple of the most infamous criminals who were also brilliant business people: Al Capone or Pablo Escobar, those individuals excelled in their respective lines of businesses. The fact that they were involved in criminal activity (e.g. had people murdered) doesn't take away from the fact that they were savvy business people - i.e. "good" businessmen, "bad" people. You can have one without the other, you can have both as well (Ben & Jerry's comes immediately to mind) -> the point is these terms are not mutually exclusive. So if you gave away the cure you could be considered both a "bad" businessperson but a "good" person.

superbug

Because I've seen companies like Wal-Mart demonized in the public by the left.

Gumbercules

Here is the link to the book's website.

Who Really Cares • Arthur C. Brooks

It says that if liberals gave blood as much as conservatives did the blood supply would increase by 45%.