Before Answering the question, I would like to mention those worse form ethical traditions which were performed by Martin Shkreli during his business. I will explain these actions based on the Knowledge which I am learning in Business ethics law subject. When Stewart Parnell is being sent to prison for knowingly selling salmonella-tainted peanut butter, so he lost his position in the company and the company faced many problems. Later on, Martin Shkreli was the man who took the leadership of the company. He was only interested to earn money and he did not pay attention to anyone during the business. So, he took some bad actions such as: When he protects the life of 63 years old person with one Pill then he changed his mind set about the one pill cost, and he raised the price from 13,50$ to 750$. The other worse action was that Shkreli understood that even with a generic drug, regulatory restrictions and a lack of competitors can lead to significant price increases. Also, he had a corner on the market, and he took advantage of having a monopoly in the market. He also kept his competitors from learning how to make drugs. Besides that, he used loopholes in the law that allowed him to place value on those tablets which were not true at all and it was not ethical. Lastly, Pharmaceutical was given permission by the F.D.A. to sell a synthetic hormone that had been used for years to stop premature births or help women who were in danger of having their babies instead of caring for the baby from nine months I mean having the early delivery of the child. So, after receiving permission and exclusive rights, K-V increased the price of injection from about $15 to $1500.

Imagine you are Martin Shkreli's lawyer and must defend him in court. Argue a defense for Martin Shkreli using three separate ethical traditions of Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics?