Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by Aero360 at 2:16 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 Here's a hypothetical situation:  In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer.  There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her.  It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered.  The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost to make.  He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2000 for a small dose of the drug.  The sick woman's husband went to everyone he knew to borrow some money, but he cold only get together about $1000.  He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later.  But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug, and I'm going to make money from it."  So he got desperate and began to think about breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.  Should he do it? We talked about this scenario in class today, and I want to hear your thoughts. -- Posted by medjai at 8:19 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 To be a good man, he must steal it. More words in a post mean you're smarter. -- Posted by hithere at 12:13 am on Nov. 13, 2008 If there's absolutely no other way to save her, he should try to steal it. Obviously. -- Posted by Sector Corrupt at 6:17 am on Nov. 13, 2008 He should steal it, and leave what money he can. He's going for the maximal good here, and nobody is actually losing anything, sans the druggist and his greed for more. But since he'd not make any money in the wife dies scenario even he comes out on top. -- Posted by wOlF at 8:26 am on Nov. 13, 2008 This is the classic story that highlights the differences in pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional morality. More words in a post make you smarter -- Posted by ElephantStone at 1:22 pm on Nov. 13, 2008 well no, because he could end up in prison, and what would his wife do then. Shes not working and her husband isnt working. More words in a post is smarter. -- Posted by the real anti christ at 10:15 pm on Nov. 13, 2008 I swear to god I see this topic every six months. Socrates would say no. I would say yes. Who to believe... -- Posted by medjai at 1:36 am on Nov. 14, 2008 Ok I changed my mind he should rob a bank and pay the good doctor the full amount. -- Posted by Blackadder at 10:47 am on Nov. 14, 2008 I came across it when I studied Psych... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma The problem is often used to evaluate moral development -- the majority of adults would of course steal the drug.. children however, often actually claim that "stealing is wrong and thus, we should not take the drug" -- Posted by medjai at 12:19 pm on Nov. 14, 2008 I bet if you did the experiment like this. "your mom has a fatal disease, the cure is on this table. She can't afford it so she's going to die." leave the room I bet that shit would get stolen so hard. Obviously you have to do it differently to fairlytest a kid -- Posted by stratocaster69 at 8:22 pm on Nov. 14, 2008 i would i mean obviously theft is unethical but its life or death and that's what matters -- Posted by gronk at 10:19 pm on Nov. 14, 2008 I would steal the drug and put $300 I should pray and ask God that he would heal her, and reveal to me what I should do -- Posted by mountain hare at 7:03 pm on Nov. 16, 2008 Quote: from Aero360 at 2:16 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 Here's a hypothetical situation: In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband went to everyone he knew to borrow some money, but he cold only get together about $1000. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug, and I'm going to make money from it." So he got desperate and began to think about breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should he do it? We talked about this scenario in class today, and I want to hear your thoughts. Should he do it? Hell yes! He should steal the drug. Not only that, he should beat the druggist to death and steal the wallet and mobile phone off the corpse, ravish his wife/mistress, kill their two pet dogs, loot their house and then burn it the ground. Then the man should return home and smother his wife to death, collect on the life insurance, and sell the radium for $10,000 to some dumb motherfucker who is stupid enough to try and save his nagging wife (or husband, for that matter)! The answer is obvious, really. -- Posted by namefake3 at 7:18 pm on Nov. 16, 2008 I'd steal it. Maybe leave $200 on the guy's counter so he's not at a loss -- Posted by mountain hare at 7:22 pm on Nov. 16, 2008 Theft is theft, whether you leave him $200 or not. So you might as well just go the whole distance so you can afford that jewel encrusted golden dildo. -- Posted by Romesds at 7:30 pm on Nov. 16, 2008 we talked about that in a class too and said that it would be the right thing to break in and steal it -- Posted by Bacon at 1:45 am on Nov. 17, 2008 Steal it for teh lulz.. Or leave your wife to die and rub it in the druggist's face like a fucker. Just to get him to feel guilty for the rest of his life and eventually kill himself 2 years later -- Posted by kjm55 at 7:49 am on Nov. 17, 2008 Looking at the situation in basic terms of morality and the definition of a righteous and wrongful act: The benefits of stealing the drug to cure his terminally ill wife outweigh the consequences of the husband being charged with stealing and being sent to jail. So yes, he should steal the drug. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 11:19 am on Nov. 17, 2008 The only morality question when it comes to life or death situations is, does the person deserve to die. Is there a plausible reason that person should be allowed to die? If the only reason is a monetary one, that would decide the morality/immorality of the situation. If the husband stole the drug, it would be considered legally wrong but it wouldn't be immoral. -- Posted by lisma at 11:56 am on Nov. 17, 2008 i believe stealing it would be the ethical option. The only unethical one is the man selling the drug at too high of a price and denying innocents the option to save their life because this guy is too much of a cheap ass. Steal it. I would steal it. And hopefully condemn this guy to hell. -- Posted by Periwinkle at 12:54 pm on Nov. 18, 2008 Theft is theft and it's wrong in that sense for him to steal the drug, but he should still do it. Right and wrong =/= black and white. -- Posted by Takinam at 3:01 am on Nov. 19, 2008 I do not see why he wouldn't steal the medicine.   What matters more to him. The overpriced, demanding durggist or his ailing wife? Ethically and morally, I would place the value of his wifes' life over that of the monetary earnings of a druggist. My opinion is that when one puts one moral over another, it is possible to find solace in abiding by one and ignoring the other. -- Posted by medjai at 4:53 am on Nov. 19, 2008 What if that druggist needs the money for an operation on his own wife that's otherwise going to die? -- Posted by medjai at 4:54 am on Nov. 19, 2008 or what if he only has enough for one family and the other family with the same issue CAN pay -- Posted by SpM at 3:32 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 7:19 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Is there a plausible reason that person should be allowed to die? "Preventing them from dying would violate the absolute and eternal word of God"? -- Posted by Forever Angel at 6:52 pm on Nov. 20, 2008 Quote: from SpM at 5:32 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 7:19 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Is there a plausible reason that person should be allowed to die? "Preventing them from dying would violate the absolute and eternal word of God"? No, it wouldn't. If it's God's wish that they die, they WILL die, there is no way to "prevent" that. -- Posted by ray503458 at 12:03 am on Nov. 21, 2008 is taking her to the hospital, letting the hospital buy it to treat her, then using our tax dollars to pay for the treatment and option? Thats what most poor people do, oh and they call 911 because for some reason people think that going in an ambulance gets them in faster! Personally, I'd steal it. The druggist isn't really living by the oath i would assume they took which is to preserve life. -- Posted by medjai at 5:38 am on Nov. 21, 2008 What if you stole the medicine and then the pharmacists wife died because he needed the money he would have earned from it to buy her a surgery he couldn't afford, but he's not going to tell the world his wife is deadly I'll because she doesn't want him to and he respects her wishes out of love so really he just seems like an asshole since we don't know. Is it morally ok to steal to preserve yourself if it's possible that you will ruin the person you stole from chances to preserve himself/his family? -- Posted by marshmellowman at 5:41 am on Nov. 21, 2008 I think this question, or a very similar one, came up on my UKCAT exam. I put yes, he should steal it. Whilst it is illegal and he is effectively robbing the druggist of potential money, not to mention the product, in order to save his wife's life he has to break moral and legal guidelines. We don't really know what ramifications this may have on the druggist, because we don't know enough of the situation, so we assume that nothing bad or really negative happens to the druggist. It's with this presumption that I'd say yes. -- Posted by medjai at 6:31 am on Nov. 21, 2008 But is it right to make that assumption? I can't see how it would be. Pages: 1 2  Next