The problem is not Shkreli per se, it's the system that allows the shit he does to be profitable. If he doesn't do it, someone else will.
He is using the same argument but if you notice that no one had done it before him (at least to the same extent) the argument isn't as strong as he wants us to believe.
What exactly is the alternative, though? As far as I can tell, there are two possibilities:
1) There is a structural problem in the way drug regulation/pricing/etc. works which lets people charge absurd amounts for stuff that can be made cheaply and still make a profit, and people who are greedy enough and have the resources will abuse this structural problem. There are a number of people among pharmaceutical company CEOs that are in fact greedy and resourceful, and so pharmaceutical price gouging happens and will continue to happen until the structural problem is solved.
or,
2) There is some inherent property of Shkreli that means he is the only person who can or will do this, and if we get rid of Shkreli the problem will be solved.
and I just can't buy 2 as an explanation.
Shkreli's case was notable, but it wasn't isolated. Maybe most price-gougers limit themselves to a reasonable
500% increase rather than 5,000% like the case of daraprim, but I somehow doubt it's because they develop a conscience and say "well, we will abuse the shit out of the system, but not
too much, we don't want to be evil about it". They raise prices as much as they think they can get away with, it just so happens Shkreli for some reason or another thought he could get away with more.
I don't mean this as a defence of Shkreli, obviously. He is impressively evil, he's just not
uniquely evil, and getting rid of him would not solve the actual problem.