Profiting from someone’s misery is one way to look at it... the other way to look at it is incentivizing someone to put forth the effort and capital (and maybe personal) risk to provide a desperately needed product when they otherwise would not be inclined to do so.
If someone knows they have a box of masks in the back of a warehouse somewhere, and they are not allowed to raise the price, they might not go to the trouble and/or expense to retrieve them and transport them to where they are most needed... Fewer people have masks... More people die.
If they are allowed to gouge, they have incentive to go to the trouble of retrieving those masks and spend the money and risk their own safety to get those masks to where people most desperately need them. More people have masks... Fewer people die.
If you have 1000 face masks that normally sell for 50 cents a piece, and don’t raise the price, the first few people buy more than they need. Fewer people have masks... More people die.
You raise the price, people aren’t as likley to take more than they need. More people have masks... Fewer people die.
Did your friend explain it like that?
He did. However, in a crisis or emergency if people are dying, there is not time for the market to react. Or if a single source has cornered the market, no time to react. Normal or even stressful situations, I’m 100% for letting the invisible hand do it’s work.