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
Patty
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.
Yeah, agreed with this pretty much.
Post by
MyTie
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.
Why is it "within his rights"? Because he has that legal capability?
Post by
Adamsm
Since he came up with the drug and apparently gotten a patent on it..yes. It's not right, or good, but sadly the way it exists(since there's the law out there that can set corporations up as their own person).
Post by
pezz
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.
Why is it "within his rights"? Because he has that legal capability?
Because he owns the drug because he invented it and put the time and resources necessary into fabricating it. I'm talking about moral/private property rather than legal rights.
Post by
MyTie
Because he owns the drug because he invented it and put the time and resources necessary into fabricating it. I'm talking about moral/private property rather than legal rights.
I'm not asking what is correct here. I'm asking you to differentiate between his moral rights and his plausible rights, and which of these dictates the "should". I deny that it is within his "rights" to do. I deny that because I don't think legal nor property scope justify moral rights. I don't believe it is "in his rights" to do so, regardless of what societies views of his actions are, or legal view of his actions are, or justification of his property is. They do not hold final sway over what "his rights" are.
Post by
Adamsm
Actually it does: Morality is in the eye of the beholder.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
1F, there's zero justification in the guy refusing to charge what the sick woman's husband is paying, when a human's life depends on it. Money isn't more important than life, especially when you don't even need that money for anything, and you're just being greedy.
The scenario, however, does not say whether he actually needs the money for something, or if he may need it further down the road.
Post by
MyTie
Actually it does: Morality is in the eye of the beholder.
So if morality is in the eye of the beholder, and the eye of the beholder changes, then one action, if done from one perspective can be moral, and the exact same action if done from another perspective can be immoral. If this is true, then that must mean that that action is neither immoral nor moral. If that is the case, what is the point of justice? What is the point of good and bad, if nothing done is ever truly good nor bad, but morally neutral, and simply viewed as good and bad. What makes one view superior to another? What makes Ghandi any better than Pol Pot?
I reject that the measure of morality is opinion. I don't know that we can agree on a measure of morality, but I think we must at least agree that there should be some measure.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Morec0
1D
I also feel the Discoverer of the treatment is being a complete jerkass. Heinz said he'd pay him later and just needed the treatment now, and he was still getting 1000 up front, what's the difference if he got the money now or later? It's clear he's making a HUGE profit, and he could have even put a timeframe on when the second payment was due, and take Heinz to court if he doesn't deliver. But instead of doing any of that, he just flat out says no. That's sickening.
Post by
Adamsm
Actually it does: Morality is in the eye of the beholder.
So if morality is in the eye of the beholder, and the eye of the beholder changes, then one action, if done from one perspective can be moral, and the exact same action if done from another perspective can be immoral. If this is true, then that must mean that that action is neither immoral nor moral. If that is the case, what is the point of justice? What is the point of good and bad, if nothing done is ever truly good nor bad, but morally neutral, and simply viewed as good and bad. What makes one view superior to another? What makes Ghandi any better than Pol Pot?
I reject that the measure of morality is opinion. I don't know that we can agree on a measure of morality, but I think we must at least agree that there should be some measure.
You can make the measure...just have to remember it's still going to be in the eyes of others; hell, just look at choice 1F; you are stealing from someone when there is another way to get the drug but the guy who already had half the money apparently didn't want to wait till he had the rest. Anyone who chooses 1F has a skewed view where if someone is dying, it's fine to steal from whoever.....so when does that stop? When you are sitting on millions as it's meant to 'just in case something happens that some one I love is going to need the money'?
It's more or less the same as trying to cast morality on some situations in the past; since the victors write the books, we see everything from their view and not from the others.
Really now, you're just stealing from someone, you're not taking something from someone that they need to live, or killing them to get the drug. No, you're breaking into their home, taking the drug, then leaving with it. There is nothing morally wrong about that when the person isn't doing anything with the item other than to make money, when you're willing to pay for the drug, and you need the drug in order to save the life of someone who needs it.
Unless the doctor is home....what then? Do you just leave, do you attack him and possibly kill him making it so that no one else will ever get the cure?
The problem with this example...is that it is a massive cop-out: There is obviously 'one 'true' moral' answer to it, and as the doctor is a gigantic #$%^&* bag, you don't feel 'bad' about stealing away his life's work.
Post by
OverZealous
1F, there's zero justification in the guy refusing to charge what the sick woman's husband is paying, when a human's life depends on it. Money isn't more important than life, especially when you don't even need that money for anything, and you're just being greedy.
The scenario, however, does not say whether he actually needs the money for something, or if he may need it further down the road.
"no, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make more money from it"
Which basically reads "I know you're wife needs the drug, but I'm a greedy jerk and I wanna make as much money as possible off it, so you're wife can die for all I care".
not
"I need to keep this drug so that I can mass produce it in order to have enough for more than one person"
its
"I want money"
Really now, you're just stealing from someone, you're not taking something from someone that they need to live, or killing them to get the drug. No, you're breaking into their home, taking the drug, then leaving with it. There is nothing morally wrong about that when the person isn't doing anything with the item other than to make money, when you're willing to pay for the drug, and you need the drug in order to save the life of someone who needs it.
I see your point, but there is still the chance (this might not be wholly relevant to the discussion, and in that case I'm sorry for derailing, but I thought this was kind of an interesting train of thought) that the druggist, or his wife, or his children, or his parents, might fall ill after the drug has been stolen from him. He does not have the money to pay for medication since he could not sell his invention, and the wife/child/parent dies as a consequence.
You never know what your own actions, however justified you may personally consider them, will result in further down the road. I'm not saying that I wouldn't break in and steal the drug myself, because I would, but if someone else dies as a result, was the decision to steal the drug morally right?
Edit: Adams also makes a good point. Is it morally right to steal someone's life's work, prevent them from making any money off it (possibly with long-term consequences),
and
physically harm them to do so, because you happen to have a need for it? If the doctor is seriously wounded or killed, no one else will ever get the cure and more than one person may die as a result.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
And like I said on the previous page, if the 'cure' isn't instant and you have to keep giving it to the wife....all of the cure will be seized by the police when they come to arrest you. As for the doctor; if he's there and sees you, you'll be caught before you can get it to the wife...so you may have to attack him.
The entire premise here is incredibly flimsy.
Like I said, I don't see where morality even comes into play in this regards since you are stealing a cure from an ass hole who has no redeeming qualities apparently. It's easy to feel morally superior in regards to someone like that; they should have worded it so that the doctor was someone who wanted to help people but still make money rather then just a greedy twat.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Sure knock him out....and cause damage to his memory so he can't make it again. Drug him...oh look, you gave him something he was allergic to and killed him! You r Winnar! Threaten him with a gun over something that is worth several thousand dollars a pop.....yeah I could see him attacking you to stop you from stealing his product.
Which is what I meant; this is a basic grade school morality problem, and something that buys into the idea that there is only black and white in the world....which really, is what Mortality is all about shattering.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Levarus
1F -
2E doesn't fit because the scientist can make more drugs.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.