Just so, and we all have different ideas about that. If a bottling offends your personal sense of value, simply refrain from buying it. I don't see any point being angry about it; sad that I'll never enjoy that particular whisky, but not angry. If there really is that kind of demand for a particular product, then a lower price would only mean that it would be snapped up quickly, and therefore unavailable, anyway.
To use an analogy I've used here before, people hereabouts sometimes express anger that the Boston Red Sox baseball club charge relatively high prices for tickets to games. Fans think that these prices are driven by escalating player salaries. This is exactly backward; high player salaries are driven by high club income, which in turn derives from high demand for tickets (simplifying there--ignoring broadcast rights, which are actually the bulk of the team's income, and, while still subject to basic economics, are more complicated). I often make the case that ticket prices are not high enough, because the product is akways sold out, and there is a thriving black market for tickets--a market whose profit does not benefit the team or players in any way. It's scalpers and, even more so, their customers who make me angry, and I refuse to be a part of that market. If there's an analog to that in the whisky world, it's collectors who pay exorbitant prices with no intent to drink, and bottlers who take advantage of them. But somehow I can't be bothered to lose any sleep over it. There are many, many whiskies I'll never drink; a couple more don't mean much to me. At most, I am saddened to think that fewer and fewer people will ever experience a Brora, for example. But it's just whisky--it's not as if it were something really important. Like the Red Sox. --Whom I can see every night on television, anyway!
(Latter point tongue-in-cheek. Honest. Please don't argue it!)