Hacker News Reader

Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

I agree that it's immoral, but I do have to wonder if there's much difference between what these people are doing vs Nike making a pair of shoes for $2 then selling them for $400, or hospitals in America marking stuff up 500 or 1000%.

By definition capitalism is about making a profit. Sell things for as much as you can, and win.

I find it fascinating how where there isn't a "crisis" then maximizing profit is just what we're all supposed to be doing, and we accept it but somehow in a "crisis" it's suddenly evil and horrible.

Suddenly capitalism itself starts to feel mighty immoral, doesn't it?

View on HN

Or selling software with 0 marginal cost for $40k? :-)

As with all moral issues, it is difficult to come up with an objective distinction between wrong and right. I tend to rely on Kant’s categorical imperative: Would society be harmed if everyone behaved in this way? In our situation where hoarders are attempting to profit from a crisis, I believe the answer is clear: It’s immoral.

> I tend to rely on Kant’s categorical imperative: Would society be harmed if everyone behaved in this way?

Hospitals in the USA marking stuff up 500 or 1000% ARE harming society already.

If all shoe companies charged $400 for a $2 shoe, I believe society would be harmed, yes.

If every company hired people as part time only so they didn't have to pay benefits, again, society would be harmed.

The list goes on. Capitalism is already harming society badly.

> Hospitals in the USA marking stuff up 500 or 1000% ARE harming society already.

Agreed, that needs to be fixed.

> If all shoe companies charged $400 for a $2 shoe, I believe society would be harmed, yes.

A competitor would step in, charge less, and win the business. It would only be immoral if competition was quashed or impossible, such as in a hoarding situation.

> If every company hired people as part time only so they didn't have to pay benefits, again, society would be harmed.

I don’t see why this is true. The only benefit of moral significance is medical, and there’s no law of the universe that states that must be paid by an employer.

> I don’t see why this is true. The only benefit of moral significance is medical, and there’s no law of the universe that states that must be paid by an employer.

Most developed countries consider maternity leave, sick leave and compassionate leave (carer's leave) basic rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com