Files are linked with exact instructions on completing a successful ethics paper. Here is the info on the case I am choosing.
The checklist states the paper’s second argument needs to have 1000+ words but it really only needs 500 words.
Developing, creating and distributing drugs can be fairly expensive and it is generally
accepted that drug companies have a right to profit from their efforts. However, in recent
years it has been claimed that certain drug companies have been overcharging for their
products in order to make even greater profits, often at the expense of people who are
very sick. For some drugs, such as the AIDS treatment AZT, many people who need
them the most can least afford to pay the prices the companies charge. In response,
people have argued that the companies should, at the very least, reduce the costs in order
to make the drugs more readily available to those who need them. Some even claim that
in certain cases the drugs should be distributed at cost (or even for free). The companies
counter that they have a right to recoup their expenses and make a profit for their
shareholders.
Issue: Is it morally acceptable for drug companies to charge as much as they can get
away with in order to maximize profits?
Hints
Arguing that it is acceptable: One approach is to argue that the long-term benefits
outweigh the potential harms. While some people might not be able to afford the existing
drugs, the extra profits will encourage and enable the companies to develop more drugs
that will alleviate a great deal of human suffering in the long run. Since drug companies
are motivated by profit and not the goodness of their hearts, bringing about the best
results for the greatest number requires allowing them to maximize profits. Another
approach is to argue that drug companies are like any other business and that they have
the moral right to charge whatever the market will sustain. The task here is to argue for
such a right. Another approach is to argue that we should not expect any more from
companies than we do from individuals. For example, it would be very nice if you,
instead of working for money, simply worked for free to benefit the poor and the sick.
However, most people think they have no obligation to do this. The task would be to
support this view and make the analogy between the individual and the company.
Arguing that it is unacceptable: A moderate approach is to argue that the harms of
allowing companies to maximize profits exceeds the benefits they would gain. The task
would be to show that companies can still make a reasonable profit while making the
drugs available at a reasonable price. A more extreme approach would be to argue that
the companies are obligated to provide such drugs even if they would make no profit at
all. This could be done by taking a consequentialist approach and contending that the
general good would be better served. Another approach is to argue that the drug
companies are obligated to help sick people if they can. If you take this position, one
thing to consider might be the difference between drugs and other consumer products.