The rise in price is the result of the market thinking there will be future rise in organic demand. The price rises because the value rises. There's nothing artificial about it.
That tug-on-your-heartstrings argument works the other way around, too: If I have a hungry baby now, but despite whatever wealth I have I can't find any in stores because price controls have resulted in a chronic shortage, what good does it do me that some people can buy baby formula at an artificially reduced price?
> The rise in price is the result of the market thinking there will be future rise in organic demand.
In a disaster situation there won’t be a future rise in organic demand so the market has no incentive to actually adjust. Price gouging doesn’t change that. The only meaningful effect is that you’re either distributing finite resources by raffle or by ability to pay. (Or by ration ticket if your government has its shit together enough to set something like that up). I don’t know any ethical framework that thinks ability to pay is the optimal distribution scheme there.
Kantians would opt for a raffle as it values people as ends in themselves rather than as money havers.
Utilitarians would opt for a raffle as random chance is more likely to distribute goods to their most valued uses than distribution according to the wealthiest.
Rawlsians would opt for a raffle because if you apply a veil of ignorance where nobody knows how much money they have before the situation starts, everyone would conclude the raffle is more fair.
That tug-on-your-heartstrings argument works the other way around, too: If I have a hungry baby now, but despite whatever wealth I have I can't find any in stores because price controls have resulted in a chronic shortage, what good does it do me that some people can buy baby formula at an artificially reduced price?