if someone making $100k is too stupid to get good medical insurance, then yea it's his own doing.
if someone making $100k is too stupid to get good medical insurance, then yea it's his own doing.
You have to be more specific about the consequences for each alternative (to steal the drug or not) to answer the question under utilitarianism. Generally, it is ok to steal if the consequences are better than they would have been otherwise. In this case, it seems that it is better to steal the cure and save a life, however, there are details that could enter into the situation to change that. Perhaps the druggist was going to use the money to produce more of the drug to save ten people. In that case, ten people might be dying rather than one. You have to go by the specifics.
Ignorant because minimum wage would necessitate living paycheck to paycheck. There are many Americans who have no choice; the best wage they can get is enough to feed their family and pay rent but not much else.
You've only seen the people that have a choice and foolishly throw all of their money away as soon as they earn it.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Another one who misses the point. Okay, the product costs $1million, insurance pays $650,000 thus leaving you with the rest.....
Taking Intro or Developmental Psych are we? Or Ethics?
If we concede that it's ok for the druggist to cause harm by caring about money more than his fellow man, we can make the leap that it's ok for the husband to care more his wife than his fellow man. In both cases we accept that personal interests matter more than societal expectations (to be compassionate & charitable, not to steal).
Conversely if we accept that it's not ok to think of oneself over our fellow man, then not only would the husband not steal the drug, but the druggist would not endanger someone for money.
Either way we argue it, the wife gets the drug and lives...which is the way it should be.
Following the robbery the man could be charged with the theft, which would also be reasonable. He would simply request a jury of his peers who would likely let him off given the circumstances. Even if he were punished for it the judge would very likely hand out a minimum sentence. Such a punishment if fully acceptable in return for saving a life...any life.
This can be taken as an economics debate as much so as an ethics debate. Is true capitalism viable in a moral society? This usually leads to the inescapable conclusion that economic policy must be subserviant to ethical and moral standards, and therefore capitalism (in its truest form) shunned. But that's a different topic.
You can also argue that there is not enough information provided. What steps were taken first? Is a patent held on the drug, will the government or other agency intervene, etc. It's really beyond the scope of the exercise, but it is vital information.
The questions about whether he should steal the drug or whether he should be punished for stealing are separate.
Another one that miss the point. How much does that cup of water worth it to a man dying of thirst in the middle of the desert?
To the man trying to get the life saving drug for his wife, it doesn't matter whether he needs $1000 or a penny, if he can't get that last amount to pay for the drug then then that amount = his wife's live.
These type of questions are old as dirt and the Dem. used it to place higher taxes on the riches.
jk.My point was merely to counter the people making personal attacks on the husband due to other factors that aren't explicitly stated in the hypothetical delimma but should be inferred (can't manage money and no insurance). It shouldn't be inferred that he neither cannot manage his money properly nor does he have less than adequate insurance since it wasn't stated in the original post.Originally posted by: crystal
Another one that miss the point. How much does that cup of water worth it to a man dying of thirst in the middle of the desert?
To the man trying to get the life saving drug for his wife, it doesn't matter whether he needs $1000 or a penny, if he can't get that last amount to pay for the drug then then that amount = his wife's live.
These type of questions are old as dirt and the Dem. used it to place higher taxes on the riches.
morally it is wrong, but practically that would be the right thing, albeit desperate thing, to do
DainBramaged
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2003
- 23,454
- 41
- 91
I've got another hypothetical question: Could God microwave a burrito so hot that it burned even His mouth?
As for the OP: bounce a check. By the time it comes back non-sufficient funds, the wife has already taken the pill.
As for the OP: bounce a check. By the time it comes back non-sufficient funds, the wife has already taken the pill.
Praxis1452
Platinum Member
- Jan 31, 2006
- 2,197
- 0
- 0
Get the drug. Save a bit. Get another chemist to analyze it. Then spread it around the world and give the pig a good punch in the nose. =)
I would break into his house, steal the information, and distribute it freely on the internet. The information would spread and millions of lives would be saved. In this case the benefits justified the crime.
Teach Social and Motivational Psych.
I don't know of any professor that uses this as a homework question, as there is no correct answer, unless it's paired with stages and one is asked to identify the stage.
Heinz is weak and should be castrated so his seed does not spread. He should have killed the druggist, cured his wife and sold the drug for his own profit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter