Professional Ethics W5

Martin Shkreli has occasionally been dubbed "the most hated man in America" since he took over Turing Pharmaceutical in 2015 and raised the price astronomically on a proprietary drug. The incident, and his worker's dismay over representing the company, can be found here:  Working for ‘the most hated man in America’

However, Shkreli maintains that he was simply trying to maximize profits for his shareholders and that the R&D was being invested into new pharmaceutical innovations. That can be see in this video:  Martin Shkreli: 'I Would've Raised Prices Higher' | Forbes

He has also defended his move on a pragmatic basis, claiming that ultimately only "fat cats" would be hurt, since it's insurance and corporate insurance companies who have to buy the drug at full price.

However, what has been notable is his absence of apologies and seemingly total lack of concern for what the price hike would do to consumers. 

If you want probably the most positive interview with Shkreli, it can be found here:  Martin Shkreli on Drug Price Hikes and Playing the World’s Villain

Taking this issue, is someone like Shkreli correct to simply focus completely on his CEO duties as opposed to being concerned for all stakeholders, including hospitals and insurance companies? Is his mentality the logical consequence of a postmodern point of view, where morality is simply what we make of it and what we prefer, or perhaps a negotiating of pragmatic good? Or is there something objectively wrong with his position and demeanor?

Develop your argument in 3-4 paragraphs.

Submission Method: Attach and submit a Microsoft Word file below or type your response in the text box below.

Grading: 40 Points