“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” -JSM

“There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”
-Milton Friedman

I think that the case of GloxoSmithKline could easily bring insightfully scathing criticism from the Kantian camp, as well as from the Utilitarianism (either Bentham of John Stuart Mill) and Stakeholder theory camp. But I think it most appropriate to look at this case - in which one of the worlds (Europe’s largest) largest drug maker withheld research from FDA regulators during the approval process for the diabetes pill Avandia, which would later be linked to increased risk of heart attack by up to 43% - through the ethics of Milton Friedman

I think Friedman is appropriate to judge this case most notably because he makes no apologies for his beliefs that corporations do not, and should not, have social responsibilities. “Only people can have responsibilities.” Yes, Kant would definitely suffice in the sense that GlaxoSmithKline violated their duty and acted with inappropriate motives. Kant would certainly be more eloquent. But to use Milton is far more poetic.

Milton allows corporation to run for themselves in their pursuit of profits. He is the unabashed legitimizer of a capitalist system, and for the ability and right of its players to pursue their self interest toward profit maximization. But for one little caveat, that GlaxoSmithKline would have been wise to have heeded: “…without deception or fraud.” For companies like GlaxoSmithKline, Enron, Halliburton, and the many others, and many others to come, the idea of Milton as the judge which drops the ax, is far more meaningful. Usually it’s only in the wild that we get to see animals eat their young.