• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hypothetical Question

C

CollectiveUnconscious

Senior member
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?
 
Assuming there was no other way for him to get the money, then of course he should have.

He should also have spent enough time in jail to pay society for his crime.

/thread.
 
There is no right and there is no wrong there is however, consequences; if you can live with the consequences then go for it.
 
So what you are saying is, this new drug has it's laboratory distroyed and it's discover not able to make money. Thus, the drug isn't produced and instead hundreds/thousands of people die.

I would personally never trade one life for many others. So ethically and morally it was wrong.

He should have instead paid the $1000 and borrowed the rest (loans, credit cards, payment plan with the doctor, etc). Or if you must resort to violence then rob a grocery store for the remaining $1000 instead of potentially risking hundreds of other lives.
 
He should have broken in and he should go to jail for it. Win-Win situation there.


The problem is if we say it's ok to steal drugs for people that are dying no one will produce the life saving drug. Why invest the time/money if people are just going to steal it? If they don't profit we all lose.
 
There is no doubt I would do it. Love conquers all --- even a stint in the joint.

Originally posted by: Baked
I hate people who don't save money and live paycheck to paycheck. What a bum.
Click to expand...

Since you obviously fail to see the point of the delimma, assume that you make 100,000 a year after taxes and the drug costs $350,000. The man can only garner $175,000 from friends. .... the point of the delimma was that the cost was just outside his reach.
 
I hate stupid "moral" questions like these. The situations are so utterly unrealistic that the question is just well, irrelevant. Is it moral? I don't know--why? Because it *would never happen*.
 
Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
Originally posted by: iRONic
Kohlberg is PLEASED.
Click to expand...

Now people are going to go and look up what the different responses mean. I was trying to get unbiased samples.
Click to expand...

Well, try something that's a bit newer then. Hauser and Mikhail have a better model. Moral instinct, not moral reasoning.
 
Originally posted by: Baked
I hate people who don't save money and live paycheck to paycheck. What a bum.
Click to expand...

thats probably one of the most ignorant things i've ever heard, but then again, this is atot so it doesn't surprise me.
 
Why couldn't the husband take out a loan? Hell, I could buy at least two of those samples just by using my credit card.

You can steal when you are literally out of options, but if you get caught you should have to face the consequences (jail time or whatever punishment is in place with your legal system). You are not allowed to cry about it after you got caught because you knew the consequences.
 
He should then leave $200 at the drugstore anonymously. Fault the pharmacist for letting his customers know how much he buys pharmaceuticals for.

Edit: Or he could leave the $1000. That's more of a subjective decision. Should be at least $200 though.
 
Originally posted by: pontifex
Originally posted by: Baked
I hate people who don't save money and live paycheck to paycheck. What a bum.
Click to expand...

thats probably one of the most ignorant things i've ever heard, but then again, this is atot so it doesn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

Ignorant 'cause unlike most americans I know how to manage my budget? Please. :roll:
 
He wasn't right to do it at all. His actions could still be punished by law, assuming the "doctor" was doing things legally. However, if I was in the same position I would have done the same thing.

Question, though. In this situation, did he leave the $1000?

Originally posted by: Baked
Originally posted by: pontifex
Originally posted by: Baked
I hate people who don't save money and live paycheck to paycheck. What a bum.
Click to expand...

thats probably one of the most ignorant things i've ever heard, but then again, this is atot so it doesn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

Ignorant 'cause unlike most americans I know how to manage my budget? Please. :roll:
Click to expand...

Not everyone can afford to save money from their paychecks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top