No, the argument was pretty clear: we're at this point because the majority has been tolerating -- and even defending -- similar behavior for a long time; therefore, we should stop tolerating this kind of behavior in general, not just for this special case under these special circumstances.
And the argument is correct. You cannot keep teaching people unlimited greed and profiteering is okay because "it's free market" and then expect them to behave ethically. You have to change what is acceptable and tolerated. The current situation is an excellent starting point, but we shouldn't stop here.
