You are using an apples to oranges argument.
While stating what I did will undoubtedly open up some to state exactly what you have stated, that would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with Adam Smith’s works on Capitalism and his companion work “the Theory of Moral Sentiments” being brought into the fray.
Smith showed that Capitalism is the best system (and it is) but it must be balanced out with morality.
Again, Jesus answered the question of “who is my neighbor” and His answer has not been annulled.
Please stop with the religious argument for forcing people to do things that are not in their rational self interest. I have no interest in a company conducting expensive drug development, and then participating in even more expensive testing, to intentionally break even or lose money.
The drug companies are filled with people who are there for reasons that have nothing to do with profit. However, without the profit motive, they will have no work.
Change your screen name. You never learned that technological innovation and progress is driven by the entrepreneurial search for profits. Develop the drug and then demand the UN come up with the money to deliver it to those who need it most.
You're making the same argument that liberals make about just about everything--every time they want to raid your purse for more taxes! "We've got to have healthcare, because it's the moral thing to do; we've got to have a basic income, because it's the moral thing to do; we've got to give away housing with AC and cable TV because we can't have people living on the streets; we've got to have special programs to feed children before, during and after school, otherwise they won't get fed at home!" The list goes on...
I think that if you look, most pharma companies (and companies in general), do the "moral" thing when they can. They acknowledge that research and development is expensive, and they must charge high prices in order to fund new R&D. But, they know that if customers can't ultimately pay for their products, they don't make a dime. Many pharma companies have special assistance programs where they offer drugs at substantially lower costs to those who can't afford their medicines; many pharma companies offer aid during local and regional emergencies (such as during major earthquakes or tsunamis.)
I would believe that many pharmas that have the expertise and could develop them, would work on vaccines for Ebola, but I don't see why all those vaccines should be offered up at no cost at all.
And one last thing, you talk about morality for the customer--what about morality toward the business? Aren't they worthy of a little morality? Shouldn't this work both ways?