Ethical exploitation?

Forums: Ethics, Exploitation
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is there such a thing as ethical exploitation? And if so, who has the right to exploit what?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,292 • Replies: 4

No top replies

@dpmartin,

There is certainly a term "ethical pharmaceuticals" in which a drug company exploits the market dominance of its "ethical products" whilst it holds the patent. I take ethical here to mean "no false claims about its medical efficacy and limited to prescription by medical practitioner according to medical ethics".

But the definition is of course problematic...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article1289478.ece

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

There is certainly a term "ethical pharmaceuticals" in which a drug company exploits the market dominance of its "ethical products" whilst it holds the patent. I take ethical here to mean "no false claims about its medical efficacy and limited to prescription by medical practitioner according to medical ethics".

But the definition is of course problematic...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article1289478.ece

fresco

thanks for the reply

I believe it’s a matter of how many are effected by something that is exploitable. If something is your’s, then it would seem that you, the owner thereof, would have the right to exploit, but exclusive right to exploit might be the question in the case you have mentioned. Ethically, what would the exploitation be for? The well being of other’s, or just one’s self? (Or the corporation with the exclusive right to produce and sell) Which, considering the need, could develop into more of a burden to the world, rather then a asset.

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

I suggest we can only talk about "non-ethical" exploitation as being identifiable,
for example, in the case of a drug company which held a patent which priced its product beyond the reach of sufferers. But ultimately we have the issue of "who or what might suffer". For example, is it unethical to cut down forests because it is a wildlife habitat ?......or because it may affect the atmosphere for as yet unborn generations ? etc.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I suggest we can only talk about "non-ethical" exploitation as being identifiable,
for example, in the case of a drug company which held a patent which priced its product beyond the reach of sufferers. But ultimately we have the issue of "who or what might suffer". For example, is it unethical to cut down forests because it is a wildlife habitat ?......or because it may affect the atmosphere for as yet unborn generations ? etc.

thanks for the reply

Yes but it is easy street to find what is “wrong” in the eyes of the beholder. Nothing is accomplished in that. The knee jerk reaction in most cases is that when one is suffering, or sees suffering, he seeks something or some one to blame.

Exploitation is required. Or we don’t eat if we do not exploit the know how and the ground, the water, to produce living things to sustain ourselves in human existence. Or stay warm, or stay sheltered, or protect ourselves from those who seek to take what we have.

So exploitation is required. Therefore there must be such a thing as ethical exploitation. Or man is doomed to do “wrong” or incorrectly, no matter what he does.

0 Replies

Ethical exploitation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know