Unit 1: What is Ethics?
Photo: Philip Montgomery / New Yorker.
Heads Up!
This is an older module, whose videos were recorded during the COVID-19 lockdown in Fall 2020. However, I have included it here as an optional, supplemental module. You are free to do its video and module quizzes and earn up to 100 bonus philosophy experience points. You are also free to completely skip it without penalty. Just be aware that Borrowed Knowledge is not available for this supplemental module.
There will be no exam questions related to anything from this module.
Also, I now teach this course very differently from when I recorded these videos. So there may be references to assignments or other material that you are not doing. The good news is that any such references should be relatively minor. Of course, if you have any confusions, please do not hesitate to let me know!
In 2020, an average of 187 people per day died in the United States due to overdoses involving opioids. In the wake of COVID-19, concerns about relapses and overdosing have increased. In response, critics argue that the executives in charge of opioid manufacturers carry a significant portion of the blame for this crisis and ought to be personally held responsible and punished. This module has you learn a little bit about the opioid crisis and analyze an argument about why prosecuting opioid executives is the right thing to do.
In particular, this module has 3 learning outcomes. By the end of it, you will be able to…
- Explain the nature of the opioid crisis and the role that opioid manufacturers may have played in it,
- Identify the structure of German Lopez’s argument for pursuing criminal charges against the owners and executives of those manufacturers, and
- Reflect on who you hold responsible for the opioid crisis.
Read This:
|
The Case for Prosecuting the Sacklers and Other Opioid Executives 
|
Context
As the title of his article suggests, German Lopez (2019) wants to argue that the Sacklers and other opioid company executives should be punished for their role in the opioid crisis. This is because many members of the Sackler family were involved in the founding and running of Purdue Pharma, a multinational pharmaceutical company. This company was a major manufacturer and distributer of opioids, from which the Sackler family profited greatly.
If you are curious about what has happened more recently regarding Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers, I have included (in the optional “Curious for More?” section below) articles by Geoff Mulvihill (2020) and Jan Hoffman (2019/2021).
Reading Questions
As you read, keep these questions in mind:
- What reasons does German Lopez give for prosecuting the Sacklers and other opioid company executives?
- Can you reconstruct your interpretation of his argument with an argument diagram?
Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to answer questions like these on this module’s quizzes.
References
Hoffman, J. (2021, August 18). Purdue Pharma warns that Sackler family may walk from opioid deal. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/health/purdue-sackler-opioid-settlement.html (Original work from September 19, 2019)
Lopez, G. (2019, October 10). The case for prosecuting the Sacklers and other opioid executives. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/10/20881636/sacklers-purdue-opioid-epidemic-prison-prosecution-criminal-investigation
Mulvihill, G. (2020, November 24). OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma pleads guilty in criminal case. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/purdue-pharma-opioid-crisis-guilty-plea-5704ad896e964222a011f053949e0cc0
Watch This:
|
Video 1 
|
Video 2 
|
|
Video 3 
|
Video 4 
|
Do This:
|
Supplemental Module S1 Quiz 
Due: September 10 |
Curious for More? (Optional)
|
OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty in Criminal Case 
|
Purdue Pharma Warns That Sackler Family May Walk From Opioid Deal 
|
I should emphasize that the first article is about a criminal case against the company (Purdue Pharma) and not against the company’s owners and executives (the Sackler family). The second article brings this point home, suggesting that the Sackler family may gain immunity against such lawsuits, after paying around $3 billion. In short, while the company may be going backrupt, members of the Sackler family may avoid prison.
A very special thanks to both Cassidy Jensen (Ethics, Fall 2020) and Jacob Hutton (Business Ethics, Fall 2020) for bringing the first of these articles to my attention.