Serious question about morals

tippx

CAG Veteran
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 him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. 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 Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? Why?
 
if he had no other alternative id say yes. hes wrong for stealing however and should face penalties if caught but who wouldnt do that for someone they love?
 
I can't answer the question, because I've never been in a situation such as that, but I can say what I'd do.

If that were me, I'd have done the same thing. Once the medicine worked however, I'd turn myself into the authorities and face the punishment for doing so. What are they going to do after the drug worked and there was nothing left but its container, shoot my wife?
 
The guy was probably a snake oil salesman to begin with. As for the husband, you can't fault him. Kinda of like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. Stealing to help someone else survive, leading to the flipside question: is it right to harshly punish someone for it? Heck, you can get out of murder charges if they think you were temporarily out of your head and had no control over your actions. You can bet this guy's courtroom drama will be whether he just kicked the door down and took it, or spent a week planning an Oceans Eleven heist to get it.
 
If the doctor was smart, he would have told the guy "I'll take $1000 but you gotta agree to let me document this for medical journals, etc." and if it worked he'd be depositing a hell of a lot more than $2K in his bank account.

Seriously though, if you have a cure for cancer (even just one form of it) and hold it back for profit, you deserve more than being burglarized. Seems extremely contradictory to the Hippocratic oath.
 
[quote name='Jek Porkins']Europe has universal health care. Heinz is wasting his time thinking about this.

Also, is your intro to Psych paper due soon?[/QUOTE]

:lol:

Sounds like we're doing his homework for him.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']probably wasn't a real cure.[/QUOTE]

So? Someone is dying and a actual real licensed doctor says he might have something that could help do you take the chance or do you let your wife die and then live with the fact your wife is dead because "Eh, it probablly wouldnt have worked".
 
Should a man steal to save his wife? Should a father steal to keep his kids from starving to death? If the man did everything in his power to exhaust all other options (working hard to make money, burrowing from others, etc) the answer must be YES. This sort of situation can ONLY occur due to the flaws of his society, and it is his duty to protect his family members. A life is worth more than all the money in the world.
 
Wow! Tough question! The husband should not steal the drugs. The drug looks like it was untested so she would have died anyway.
 
Link to the news story? Or is this a hypothetical?

Either way, you'll have to play through Dead Rising 2 to find the stunning truth.
 
[quote name='MisterHand']Link to the news story? Or is this a hypothetical?

Either way, you'll have to play through Dead Rising 2 to find the stunning truth.[/QUOTE]

Hypothetical. I've seen the same question repeated when I took basic philosophy classes.
 
[quote name='Jek Porkins']Europe has universal health care. Heinz is wasting his time thinking about this.

Also, is your intro to Psych paper due soon?[/QUOTE]

:applause:
 
[quote name='seanr1221']:lol:

Sounds like we're doing his homework for him.[/QUOTE]

I had the exact same question in one of my classes last year, I believe it was Intro to Sociology.
 
^ I just posted that in another thread. Seriously, is there no thread on the internet where that phrase cannot be applied? I THINK NOT!
 
Is it wrong to steal? Yes.
Would I personally condemn him for doing so in this situation? No
Should he face the repercussions of his actions? Yes
 
what do you mean "should" he have done that?

he did it. whats the should? are you suggesting there is a scale by which to measure the should or shouldnotness of an action?
 
I don't blame him. It's like stealing bread because your broke and homeless and need to feed your family. It was done for survival. fuck the druggist and his greed.
 
I've heard this story before, I believe it is part of a personality test.


[quote name='Malik112099']Stick the radium in her pooper.[/QUOTE]

And yes this is the correct answer from what I can remember.




.
 
He should have stolen the entire supply and sold it at a price based on people's ability to pay. Maybe then the druggist would go broke and feel a portion of their pain. After he repents he can receive the profits.
 
[quote name='neverletthem']Kohlberg's stages of moral development up in here.[/QUOTE]

Lol yup. I took a class on Moral Development. We discussed this very question from various moral standpoints for about 5 weeks. Shitty class, and I kinda think Kohlberg's theory is horseshit.

In case any of you were wondering, the "correct" answer according to Stage 5/6 thinking (highest moral development stages, with stage 6 members being Gandhi and MLK) is to steal the drug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma
 
druggist? is that a thing people say? excuse my ignorance if it is.[quote name='Jek Porkins']Europe has universal health care. Heinz is wasting his time thinking about this.

Also, is your intro to Psych paper due soon?[/QUOTE]i knew i recognized this from somewhere.
 
[quote name='Wolfkin']druggist? is that a thing people say? excuse my ignorance if it is.[/QUOTE]

Botanist, psychiatrist, ....

In this case maybe it would be better to call him a drug developer or scientist, since some people probably equate druggist as having negative connotations. Maybe some unintentional bias from the person who originally wrote up this moral argument to be debated? Do some people view druggist with positive connotations? fuck it, some people hate scientists. Which one is the most neutral.
 
I think druggist is the old term that is now referred to as pharmacist. Same way we started calling it "pork" and "beef" because saying "Yes waiter, I'll have the pig and my wife will have the cow." just sounds bad.
 
ok because if i was asked I'd call that guy a pharmacist. if it's an old term I've never heard it before.. guess I gotta do some reading or what not.
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']I think druggist is the old term that is now referred to as pharmacist. Same way we started calling it "pork" and "beef" because saying "Yes waiter, I'll have the pig and my wife will have the cow." just sounds bad.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but this guy developed this new drug. I'd classify him as a Chemist in this instance.
 
bread's done
Back
Top