|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 07, 2011 10:38 PM |
|
|
This problem is defintely NOT about the question whether the end justifies the means.
If you will die from something, but another guy has the option to save your life, but doesn't, because you are prepared to give him everything you have, but the guy doesn't think it's enough, even though he'd made a handsome profit (that is, has no losses, but maybe a less high profit), and will let you die therefore, all bets are off, because from then on you fight AGAINST HIM for your survival.
He is letting you die because the profit he can make with you isn't big enough.
So - it's fight for survival, and you could even make a case at court that stealing it was justified. It's the US, and you could definitely win that.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2011 10:44 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 22:45, 07 Nov 2011.
|
there's a worst case. the guy refuses to help you, not because he wants to do a profit, not because he wants something, but just because he is convinced it is the best thing to do.
wasn't it the case of some extremly zealous nazis, for example?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 07, 2011 10:44 PM |
|
|
That's debatable. While the motivation may be pure, the intent to commit the crime remains and you are still guilty of the crime.
The gentlemen does not have a duty to save you. He can watch you die and it would be perfectly fine unless 1) he has a specific duty (as in, that's his job) or 2) he has already made the attempt to save you and decided to stop doing it.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2011 10:47 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 22:50, 07 Nov 2011.
|
no, because in JJ's example, you can still use the greed of the guy. in my example, there may be nothing to do to convince the guy.
actually, now that I think about it, it reminds me of some stuffs you see on internet where they ask money to help some ill child and you have no way to know whether it is true or not.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 07, 2011 10:52 PM |
|
|
So what? The guy is greedy so he withheld medicine. That's within his rights. That's not a defense to the crime.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted November 07, 2011 11:00 PM |
|
|
I can see how he'd get into trouble for stealing the product but I'd let him off as his intentions were pure. He just wanted to save his wife. He shouldn't have stole but I'd probably do the same thing if put in a situation like that. My wife's health is more important.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2011 11:05 PM |
|
|
|
here in France, you can be condemned for not helping a person in danger (well, I'm not sure how they define that actually, but I guess if you see someone dying and just say "I don't care", that's against the law)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2011 11:40 PM |
|
|
Which is one of the reasons France is not as free as the US. You're forced to become a slave to someone just because they're "in need".
To answer the dilemma directly, Heinz should break in to steal the medicine, but after using it, he should confess, make restitution to the victim, and allow himself to be punished.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 12:38 AM |
|
|
Some interesting responses.
This is a famous problem in moral psychology, called the Heinz Dilemma. It was used by Lawrence Kohlberg in his research on human moral development and, specifically, his theory of stages of moral development. It's worth pointing out that Kohlberg wasn't interested in what answer people defended (to steal or not to steal) but rather their rationalization.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 12:47 AM |
|
|
I don't think he should have broken into the store, but I think he should have gotten the medicine.
We all have different priorities and I'm certainly not going to put judgement upon someone for deciding what matters in their life.
However, I'm willing to judge the way he did it.
That's also why I think it was wrong that he stole the medicine, after all how could he know he'd even find it? There could be details left out. Not to mention this is a matter of desperation where anyone with sufficient authority could probably milk you for money for a wonder drugs that doesn't even exist.
In my opinion, it'd have been smarter to just steal the money required, after all money is money and it's not hard to go get some, without too much of a risk (except you're going to get caught, but that'll still take a day or two).
After having stolen the required money, he could have paid for the medicine, then after his wife has taken the medicine, he could turn himself over. Unless it's a completely "snowty" country he lives in (which it by part already seems to be, when you can't get the help needed, though I honestly suspect in this case there simply is no "wonder drug"), I'm quite convinced there'll be a great deal of understanding about the situation and it's likely he'll do community service for a relative short period.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 01:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
No. The drug is not his to take. He has no right to the drug even though he would use it for good. He should have continued to pursue other avenues rather than turning to crime.
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 01:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You may not always be able to predict the end perfectly, but that's no reason to reject consequentialism. Otherwise, human action would necessarily be meaningless.
There are many other moral systems that are much more preferable.
Quote:
all bets are off, because from then on you fight AGAINST HIM for your survival.
Actually, he's fighting for the survival of his wife, but anyway. Where does the line go? Would it be OK for him to hurt the man in order to get the drug? Or even kill him if necessary?
Quote:
It's worth pointing out that Kohlberg wasn't interested in what answer people defended (to steal or not to steal) but rather their rationalization.
The rationalization reveals your moral system and authority, although Kohlberg studied morality as a psychological development. Interesting.
Btw, what would your answer be?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 07:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
all bets are off, because from then on you fight AGAINST HIM for your survival.
Actually, he's fighting for the survival of his wife, but anyway. Where does the line go? Would it be OK for him to hurt the man in order to get the drug? Or even kill him if necessary?
The question for the line is irrelevant in this case, because it is a SPECIAL case, not a GENERAL one.
Also, the question is not, whether he has a LEGAL right to take the medicine, but a MORAL right, and in this special case he definitely has from MY moral point of view: 1) he offered the guy everything he could (you might say his worldly goods), which are enough to MORE than recompensate the guy with the medicine, but 2) the guy declined (with the law on his side), MORALLY, however, putting his EXTREME greed above the life of another person. While this is legally fine, from the husband's point of view, putting the need of his beloved wife above the greed of the other is perfectly fine, since no one suffers any damage.
There IS an underlying moral - and mvass, isn't denial of assistance in an emergency punishable in the US as well? -, and that moral is, IF you dabble in the health and live-saving business, you have to take from the rich and sometimes give to the poor. As a hospital, for example, you cannot decline to help in an emergency, because payment may be uncertain.
In this case, developing a cure for some illness that may save lives, not only enables you to earn money with it, it also comes with a certain responsibility - MORALLY spoken.
As a last note, I'm rather sure that if this was a real case that would go to court in the US, every halfway good solicitor could get a not guilty from every jury in a criminal court, while at a civil court he'd probably be convicted to pay, but I'm not even sure whether he'd have to pay the 1000$.
Contrary to that, ESPECIALLY in the US the man could sue the guy with the medicine and could win the case as well.
Keep in mind, that in this special case the root of the problem is GREED. Greed is fine as long as there are no problems, but if there are, greed is generally frowned upon, even if legally rightful.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 08:59 AM |
|
|
|
For me, this is no dilemma at all. If this is the only way to help someone I care about before it's too late, I'll break into the house and will probably break the owner's head if he gets in the way. He had his chance to help and even to get paid for this but he missed it. He's in his right to be a scum if he wants it but by making this choice, he also accepts the consequences - in this case to be robbed and eventually get beaten. What is legal and what not has nothing to do with the whole story.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 09:07 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 09:07, 08 Nov 2011.
|
I agree with what JJ said, but I'm not sure about the root of the problem. how is Heinz supposed to evaluate the greed of the chemist?
is he supposed to know that the drug really only cost 200? and that the chemist currently have some available and doesn't need the money to produce more?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 01:04 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 13:05, 08 Nov 2011.
|
Quote:
In this case, developing a cure for some illness that may save lives, not only enables you to earn money with it, it also comes with a certain responsibility - MORALLY spoken.
Whether you believe in this or not is not only the gist of this problem but it reflects on a lot of other things too.
Lemme try to explain. People can, as far as I can see, be divided in three general groups according to this issue.
(1)
The first ones are those who believe that the pharmacist has every right to do whatever he pleases with his merchandise and that the man had no right to take away something that didn't belong to him. These people, though undeniably supportive of market freedom and a firm, clear system of materialistic ethics (mostly coming down to "a man has no obligation to help if he doesn't want to", and "a man's right to his personal belongings is sacred"), would - in this specific case - be forced to let the woman die, as it was her family's fault that they didn't earn enough money for the cure anyway (no matter the opportunities they had - it's capitalism so they must have had an opportunity, and if they didn't, that's no one's fault), and no one is entitled to free stuff (such as a public health care system), as that would be seen as leeching and theft from the taxpayers. To them, stealing is the pinnacle of immorality, and the pharmacist had every right in the world to do what he was doing. It's a shame the ordinary man ended up like that, they agree, but he was obliged to use other methods to fight for his family; methods of - let's be honest - rather doubtful efficiency, such as going public (if the pharmacist found the cure and patented it, he holds an effective monopoly on it and anyone who needs it will have to get it from him anyway; he hardly cares about that little bad publicity he'd earn from this man telling everyone he wouldn't sell him his merchandise for less than the regular price).
(2)
The second type are those who believe they have no problem with this system, and pharmaceutical market freedom, yet believe the man was in the right for stealing, and that he'd probably be in the right for hurting or killing the pharmacist along the way, if he had no other option. They see the world, right now, as a jungle, and sometimes when people suck hard you've got to fight for yourself and your family in any way you can. They also support general altruism (they believe they would've helped the man if they were the pharmacist and everything would be alright) and a situational approach to ethics and justice based on personal motives (the pharmacist could've helped. It's his fault his skull's now broken). What happens here is a conflict of personal interest between the pharmacist, seen here as an embodiment of greed and callousness, and the guy, seen as the avatar of the little man who, after giving it his best shot, decides to battle it out with unfairness and help not even himself, but his wife - it's clear which of these two they can more easily identify with and who can more easily earn their sympathies. These people, though seemingly supportive of the current economic system (or passive about all that), are essentially in conflict with it - or, at least, its use on crucial industries such as the pharmaceutical one. As long as something reminiscent of the scenario above is allowed to happen, as long as a company is allowed to patent a life-saving drug (or form a cartel with other producers of it) and then effectively blackmail people by charging outrageous prices for it, which they're forced to pay unless they want their loved ones and themselves to suffer, the system is unethical and harmful - and it's not like all that doesn't happen already. But letting it happen and then supporting people who commit theft and, possibly, murder does definitely not solve the problem.
(3)
And then there are communist pinko liberal pigs who want to steal your TVs and rape your babies.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 01:25 PM |
|
|
|
Is that supposed to be a serious contribution?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 01:39 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 13:43, 08 Nov 2011.
|
They see me contributin
They hatin
Well it was more or less all an intro for the punchline, yes, but it still sounds smarter than most of what you guys are saying.
Probably makes more sense too, but I wouldn't know since I didn't really read too carefully.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 01:48 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 13:57, 08 Nov 2011.
|
for the reason that you wrote it? 
Quote:
They also support general altruism (they believe they would've helped the man if they were the pharmacist and everything would be alright) and a situational approach to ethics and justice based on personal motives (the pharmacist could've helped. It's his fault his skull's now broken).
I think you forget the emotionnal side of things now. in such a case, you won't even make justifications for killing the chemist. if the situation seems hopeless, you won't think and will opt for extreme solutions.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 05:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Is that supposed to be a serious contribution?
To me it looks like a quite good contribution, except for point 3 which is a bit too short, even if the implied parts explains it perfectly.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
