The mistake you're making is in ignoring the consequences of the decisions you imply.
for those who can afford it. The rest can go get stuffed.
Originally, computers were huge, laughably simple, and could only be afforded by governments. Thanks to the investments of those governments, then rich corporations - computers improved exponentially while costs decreased exponentially. The rest weren't getting "stuffed". The rest are the beneficiaries of progress predicated by those initial computers.
So on the whole, the moral decision is to not steal the drug, even when your relative needs it.
This is a good example of where you have the ethical lesson at your fingertips.
then that's already a society that is not serving its members' interests
But then in the next sentence you throw that lesson away without solving the problem that the reasoning solved in the first place. The lesson is that you can't view the ethics of a situation in isolation. You have to consider the wider consequences of destroying the incentive for some to use their free time to research drugs and create inventions.
>> You have to consider the wider consequences of destroying the incentive for some to use their free time to research drugs and create inventions.
I'm sorry, but the incentive is right there: curing a person's blindness. Curing cancer. Curing HIV. Helping people live longer, healthier, happier, more productive lives. These are worthy goals and most scientists will at the very least recognise them as such. Most anyone will recognise them as such.
But you're talking about monetary incentives. And that's the higher moral ground, is it?
Curing someone's blindness, or cancer, or HIV, won't pay one's bills (unless the patient fronts you the $850k, that is). And by "one's bills", I mean the bills of the research team, the lab technicians, the doctors, people on the distribution pipeline, people who design, build and sell advanced machines and material that is used at every stage of drug's research and development, and people who test it all and independently ensure the new drug doesn't hurt instead of helping.
The price tag isn't so high because someone wants to get really rich off other people's suffering. It's so high, because to develop a drug, we need to employ ridiculous amounts of resources of our civilization, in labour, knowledge and material.
Until we hit post-scarcity, where all the basic needs can be fulfilled pretty much for free, money will be driving things. Those are the constraints under which we work today.
>> Curing someone's blindness, or cancer, or HIV, won't pay one's bills
(unless the patient fronts you the $850k, that is).
Of course, people need to pay their bills. And I need to get the life-saving
drug that's too expensive for me to buy. So, if it's OK for you to price that
life-saving drug so high that I can't afford it, because you have bills to
pay, then it's certainly OK for me to steal it from you, because I have a life
to live.
If you don't help me to stay alive (or to cure my blindness etc), why should I
help you pay your bills?
FWIW, if I were in that position, I wouldn't blame you for stealing that drug from me, and myself I would do my damnest to make it as widely available as possible.
But ultimately, it doesn't generalize well. Society will forgive you a lot in emergencies, but if a behaviour like this becomes common, it really would threaten the ability to provide drugs at all, and it would end up condemning to death much more people in the near future.
I understand that. I think the solution to that is to make sure people can afford the care they need, so nobody has to steal. Like I say in another comment, public healthcare in the European model, seems to work. I'm from an EU country and my medical bills have always been paid for by public money. I had to contribute a few times, for drugs etc, but nothing major- and people in dire economic straits don't have to pay anything at all.
for those who can afford it. The rest can go get stuffed.
Originally, computers were huge, laughably simple, and could only be afforded by governments. Thanks to the investments of those governments, then rich corporations - computers improved exponentially while costs decreased exponentially. The rest weren't getting "stuffed". The rest are the beneficiaries of progress predicated by those initial computers.
So on the whole, the moral decision is to not steal the drug, even when your relative needs it.
This is a good example of where you have the ethical lesson at your fingertips.
then that's already a society that is not serving its members' interests
But then in the next sentence you throw that lesson away without solving the problem that the reasoning solved in the first place. The lesson is that you can't view the ethics of a situation in isolation. You have to consider the wider consequences of destroying the incentive for some to use their free time to research drugs and create inventions.