In the video “Martin Shkreli On Drug Price Hikes and Playing the World’s Villain”, Martin Shkreli discusses his controversial decision to increase the price of a drug used to treat infections in people with AIDS and other immunodeficiencies by 5,000%. The speaker believes that while it may have been an unpopular move from the public perspective, it was ultimately a necessary one from a business standpoint. He claims pharmaceutical companies need more money in order to develop new drugs and treatments for illnesses.

The ethical issues discussed in this video revolve mainly around whether or not raising prices on essential medications is morally acceptable if done for financial gain. Through his argument, Shkreli attempts to convince viewers that his actions were justified regardless of any moral implications because he was simply working within the confines of capitalism. This approach relies heavily on utilitarian reasoning; namely, that sacrificing morality for profit can be beneficial as long as it results in overall good for society (in this case, potential new life-saving drugs).

I do believe there are ethical implications involved when pricing medications at exorbitant amounts. While I understand Shkreli’s argument about needing companies to have higher profits so they can invest in researching and creating new medicines, I cannot agree with profiting off those who are already sick or vulnerable enough to require medication. Furthermore, even though these profits could theoretically benefit all humanity through medical advancements down the line, such gains would be felt over decades while affected individuals must bear their costs immediately; often leading them into debt or worse due to their inability to pay such high prices without proper insurance coverage or support programs. Thus in my opinion utilitarianism does not justify such actions here due to its focus on collective versus individual welfare.

Finally, when taking into account theories like Kantian ethics which place emphasis on universal moral principles rather than outcomes, we see how such dramatic price increases might violate basic notions of fairness and justice given how much these drugs cost compared with what many people living paycheck-to-paycheck are able afford—especially since no one should ever die simply because they cannot afford healthcare services or medications prescribed by doctors—regardless if those medications exist only due corporate greed or not. In conclusion then, I disagree with Martin Shrekli’s point of view about drug price hikes being advantageous despite possible moral repercussions because doing so goes against fundamental laws governing human decency which should always come first especially when discussing matters concerning health care access and affordability which affect millions every day worldwide .