This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Morality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
In order for this thread to work, please follow the instructions here. If this is your first time in this thread, read this post completely, and post a reply to it without reading any other part of this thread. Do not use google, or other sources. Some integrity
must
be exercised to ensure that your reply comes completely from you.
Read the part in bold carefully:
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?
Now to reply, select one of the two following options
:
1) Heinz should steal the drug.
2) Heinz should not steal the drug.
Once you have selected one of those two options, select ONE of the additional options. Choose the one that
most closely resembles
your reasoning for why you chose the first option (either 1 or 2).
If you chose 1
:
A) Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200, not how much the druggist wanted for it. Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.
B) Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
C) Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband.
D) Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.
E) Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law.
F) Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.
If you chose 2
:
A) Heinz should not steal the medicine because he would consequently be put in prison, which would mean he is a bad person.
B) Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would probably experience anguish over a jail cell more than his wife's death.
C) Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he tried to do everything he could without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.
D) Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal.
E) Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.
F) Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.
Your reply should contain a single, two digit, alpha-numeric response (i.e. 1A, 1E, 2C, etc.). After you provide your two digit response for what best resembles your belief, feel free to discuss it, and read the other replies in this thread.
After replying, feel free to follow
this link
, and read the page in its entirety, to understand the reasoning behind the questions.
Post by
Azazel
1F
Because the lives of others are more important than money.
Perhaps it'd be "selfish", if others could use it aswell. But hey, love matters :p
Post by
MyTie
I choose 1E. I was torn between 1E and 2F, though. I think the stealing is fine to save a life, but I don't think endangering others is an adequate consequence to saving others. I think the question should have accounted for that in the first place.
Post by
Azazel
Heh, the 2F really is one of the biggest movie cliches of all time.
Save your love, or everyone else?
Post by
xlanadenx
1F for myself as well.
I think I've seen this before. Are you going to post another example where we have to follow the same route we chose (ex: 1F) but the outcome is not what we like?
Post by
buzz3070
1D
I remember reading this in my psychology text book and talking about in in either psych 101 or 102.
I picked my answer because i do agree stealing is wrong and that every criminal should be punished, but i also agree greed should not be an excuse to deny a lifesaving treatment to someone who needs it now and that the punishment after is going to be a lot less then the emotional punishment of letting your wife die.
Post by
MyTie
Are you going to post another example where we have to follow the same route we chose (ex: 1F) but the outcome is not what we like?
The point here is not to "catch" anyone. What do you take me for?
Anyway. This exercise comes from
Kohlberg's stages of moral development
. I had a discussion with my daughter today about where she felt she was. We agreed that her actions lately have placed her.. well.. on second thought, that's none of off-topic's business.
I placed myself at stage 5. I really question my ability to honestly say I would conform with stage 6. That might be beyond my ability to practice in reality. I cannot STAND stage 4 behavior, though, much less below stage 4. I expect better of society and individuals, which is probably why I am so cynical.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I would say 1F, with the caveat that he should compensate the druggist after the fact- maybe not the whole $2000, but the costs of the drug and any damage hes does getting it at least. I think that property rights are not as important as human life. However, in the interests of making sure that the druggist continues to produce the cure, so that other people's lives can be saved, the law can't take the position that people are entitled to steal it from him.
Maybe that's more 1D- I'm not sure. I don't think he should be charged criminally, or go to jail or anything. But I'm trying to think about immediate vs. long term consequences. He should do it to save a life. But, if the druggist is not financially compensated for it, will that cause more death in the long term because he is no longer willing to make/share the drug if he feels people can take it from him at any time without consequence?
Post by
530888
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
2E
but
While I think Heinz should not be
allowed
to take it if the owner does not want him to have it, that's not to say that I think he ought not do it (or that I wouldn't do the same myself in those circumstances).
The interesting point of discussion here as I see it isn't what should he do but what should a judge decide about it afterwards.
Post by
392412
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The interesting point of discussion here as I see it isn't what should he do but what should a judge decide about it afterwards.
No. You've got it backward. The point of this discussion is the relevance of society and law to personal behavior. How should the self view and act toward law? How should the self place importance on rules of punishment, rules of social norms, and rules of universal morality.
That is why, personally, I place myself "lower" on the chain, because I see the right to life trumping all law, not that the right of life trumps the rights of property, which is more of a universal moral position than a legalistic moral position.
Post by
xlanadenx
Are you going to post another example where we have to follow the same route we chose (ex: 1F) but the outcome is not what we like?
What do you take me for?
A MyTie.
Anyway. This exercise comes from
Kohlberg's stages of moral development
.
I placed myself at stage 5. I really question my ability to honestly say I would conform with stage 6. That might be beyond my ability to practice in reality. I cannot STAND stage 4 behavior, though, much less below stage 4. I expect better of society and individuals, which is probably why I am so cynical.
I ask this because I remember seeing it in a thread on reddit. It was interesting to see how many claimed that they would cling to only 1 type of morality and then were shown different examples, mostly some on a personal scale and some on a universal. The examples would list outcomes based on the moralities and many found that they didn't agree with being strictly that type when applied on a larger scale.
I think it was more to show that there was no one "right" way. Unfortunately, I can't find the thread and reddit has a !@#$ty search funtion.
Post by
Adamsm
1D
Since all of the 1 choices involve breaking the law, he has to accept the consequence of that. Sure he possibly saves the wife(depends if it's an instant cure or something that she would have to keep using for the rest of her life), but he still stole from another person...and if the doctor had been there when he broke in, what would have happened after that? Beating the druggist to escape?
But to me...this doesn't really seem to be about morality, since you hit a moral choice pretty much every day in your life and how you respond could change from day to day depending on the circumstances.
Post by
asakawa
I see, well, the question asks what do I think Heinz should do. I can't condone stealing so I don't think Heinz should steal it but I certainly would steal to save my wife's life and happily accept the punishment.
I suppose that makes me 1D. But my reasoning is that I would have made the judgement that the death of my wife is a worse thing in the world than the theft of this object. Does that edge me into 1E? Somewhere in between (am I allowed to do that?)
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think the question of morality vs. law is an interesting one, and I find that it gets tricky not in whether life is more important than property (which almost everyone will agree with), but whether having the law (or at least certain laws) in place saves more lives than it costs by virtue of keeping society from collapsing on itself.
Short Term: Is it more important to save a life than to not break a window or steal something: yes.
Long Term: If there is no consequence for theft at all, as long as you can prove that it was to save a life, will it create a situation where people are constantly stealing from other people things like food, clothes, money, etc., under the excuse that it will be used to save a life? Will that cause more deaths as people resist having their property stolen? Will that cause people to stop trying to work for their own necessities when they know there are no consequences for taking them from someone else, which will then create scarcity, or a system where some people are always being stolen from by others? Is the overall affect of not enforcing property laws after the fact going to actually do more harm in terms of human life and well-being than good?
I think, if I consider the long term consequences, 1D is probably closer to the right answer (for me, anyway). for the sake of his wife, he should take the medicine. For the sake of everyone else, he should be required to compensate the druggist and be accountable to the law after the fact.
Post by
MyTie
Since all of the 1 choices involve breaking the law, he has to accept the consequence of that.
This is a big part of why our personalities clash in debates. I reject the idea that laws equivocates morality and consequences. I believe in being personally responsible for your actions, regardless, and even in spite of law. If the law is wrong, I do not believe I am accountable to it. That is a big reason why I left the military, and a big reason why, as a jurist, I wouldn't necessarily find someone guilty of a crime they were guilty of.
This doesn't make me wrong and you right, just why we see things differently.
Post by
Adamsm
I think the question of morality vs. law is an interesting one, and I find that it gets tricky not in whether life is more important than property (which almost everyone will agree with), but whether having the law (or at least certain laws) in place saves more lives than it costs by virtue of keeping society from collapsing on itself.
Short Term: Is it more important to save a life than to not break a window or steal something: yes.
Long Term: If there is no consequence for theft at all, as long as you can prove that it was to save a life, will it create a situation where people are constantly stealing from other people things like food, clothes, money, etc., under the excuse that it will be used to save a life? Will that cause more deaths as people resist having their property stolen? Will that cause people to stop trying to work for their own necessities when they know there are no consequences for taking them from someone else, which will then create scarcity, or a system where some people are always being stolen from by others? Is the overall affect of not enforcing property laws after the fact going to actually do more harm in terms of human life and well-being than good?That's my thinking.
Post by
pezz
2E I guess, although it's not quite right.
We all agree Heinz is planning on
stealing
the medicine. The only way that taking something from someone is morally justified is when by right you should have it. In other words, if the theft of the medicine is justified, then the druggist
owes
Heinz the medication, or Heinz has a
right
to it.
If that's the case, that must mean that Heinz's wife's right to life isn't a
negative
right, it's a
positive
one. In other words, her right to life produces certain obligations (in this case, the donation of property) on the part of others around her as and when it's necessary. This seems reasonable when it's a $200 pill, but it becomes a little less reasonable when someone needs an organ transplant and you're the only matching donor. It seems a little less reasonable when someone with a desirable blood type is
required
to donate so much blood it damages their health.
That all said, the druggist is a terrible person, too. Refusing to take a five-fold profit and save someone's life in the process because it's not
enough
money is absolutely morally reprehensible; but it's within his rights to do so.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.