Opioid addiction is a relevant social problem that ruins the lives of thousands of people annually. Hence, pharmaceutical companies have a moral obligation to prevent the illegal consumption of harmful drugs. Rule utilitarianism supports this position since it is a theory of maximizing happiness (Dimmock & Fisher, 2017). Like all maximizing philosophies, rule utilitarianism argues that “greatest happiness/pleasure should always be secured for the greatest number” (Dimmock & Fisher, 2017, p. 20). Since illegal consumption of medical products leads to health deterioration, addictions, and economic downfalls, pharmaceutical companies should prevent it.
There are several reasons why rule utilitarianism provides a better answer to the problem than other maximizing theories. First, although rule utilitarianism is a hedonistic theory that might consider temporary “happiness” from drugs as maximizing pleasure, the theory argues that the quality of this feeling is low (Dimmock & Fisher, 2017). The distinction between lower and higher pleasures is crucial, and the “pleasure” of having a healthy life is preferable to the “pleasure” of drug sensations. As a result, rule utilitarianism supports the idea that pharmaceutical companies should prevent the illegal consumption of drugs since this method would promote higher pleasure in great numbers.
Secondly, one could argue that utilitarianism should let pharmaceutical companies freely distribute their products even for illegal consumption because doing otherwise would restrict people’s “pleasure” of drug sensations. However, rule utilitarianism notes that it is morally acceptable to exercise power against one’s will to protect others. It means that pharmaceutical companies have a moral right to reject providing their products and services if it will lead to greater happiness for the greatest number of people. For instance, when an individual buys drugs illegally, it does not only affect this person but also has an impact on their family and associated people. It could potentially lead to physical abuse, negative socioeconomic implications, and other problems or “harm to others,” which enables the principle of rule utilitarianism (Dimmock & Fisher, 2017). Hence, since illegal drug consumption, in most cases, leads to collective harm, pharmaceutical companies can exercise their moral right to stop distributing their products if necessary. In summary, rule utilitarianism supports the view that pharmaceutical companies should ensure that their products are not consumed illegitimately.
Reference
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Ethics for A-level. Open Book Publishers.