Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
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 produce. 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 Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
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.
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread
Facebook
Twitter