[r9etb]

Does this guy make his case?

I suppose if you think that monetary transactions are the only true measure of moral interaction, then I suppose be makes his case.

However, if one believes there is a moral difference between "can" and "should," (i.e., I "can" charge $25 for a gallon of water, but "should" I?) then I would say that he has not made a case for anything except his own moral obtuseness.

[Atlas Sneezed]

However, if one believes there is a moral difference between "can" and "should," (i.e., I "can" charge $25 for a gallon of water, but "should" I?) then I would say that he has not made a case for anything except his own moral obtuseness.

---

You don't get it. If he sells you the water at $1 per gallon, or some price you "feel" is moral, and you use it to take baths, water your lawn, or stay around and drink instead of leaving to stay with relatives in an unaffected area, and you would not have bought it at $25 per gallon, it is no longer available to the next customer who is dying of thirst, and values it much more highly than you.

I hope the extreme example illustrates what reading the article failed to.

[SBprone]

How about this: Some yahoo with a truck who lives 500 miles from the disaster sees a report on TV about price gouging and decides to get some of that $25 per gallon for himself. So he loads up his truck with bottled water and sets off to make his fortune.

If he gets there quick enough he might sell some of that water for several bucks a gallon, but most likely he will have to sell it for a small profit if at all. That's because there are lots of other yahoos with trucks who watch TV and would like to make a quick buck.

God bless yahoos with trucks and God bless America.

[Badray]

" I suppose if you think that monetary transactions are the only true measure of moral interaction, then I suppose be makes his case."

Do you suppose that the price of oranges and orange juice will rise with the devastation of orange crops in the hurricane? If so, why? Is that immoral too?