DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> A question of morals.
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 173, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/02/2005 01:39:09 PM · #1
This question was posed in my psychologically class today, and I would like to hear some of your input on it.

A man's wife is dying of a rare illness. The druggist in his town however, develops a new drug that may cure her. It costs the druggist $200 to create the drug, but he is charging $2000 for it. When the sick woman̢۪s husband enters the store, he only has $1000 he borrowed from all of his friends. He asks the druggist if he may purchase the drugs now, and pay the rest later. The druggist says no, and will not make the sale. Later that night, the man steals the drug.

Do you condone the man's actions?

Discuss please...
 12/02/2005 01:42:41 PM · #2
No. If you condone his actions now, you condone the next guy who steals cuz he can't afford food for his family - why get foodstamps? Why work? Get a gun. No.

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 18:42:50.
 12/02/2005 01:45:33 PM · #3
No. There are other (legal) ways to solve the problem. Take out a loan, take the story to the local newspaper, maybe trade business services with the druggist... two wrongs don't make a right.
 12/02/2005 01:47:41 PM · #4
Damn, that's a loaded question if I ever have seen one. There seems to be an implication that the drug companies are raping the people, but there's no definition of "create". Does this mean it conts him $200 per dose to manufacture the drug, or that his total cost to invent the drug was $200?

Because for sure if you look at the physical cost to manufacture a drug in the real world these days, it's pretty low sometimes, but can you ignore the HUGE development costs that went into the years of research pre-manufacture?

In any case, for the limited example posed, if the thief left $1000 on the counter when he took the drug, with a note saying he'd pay the rest in one year, with 25% interest, would this make a difference? Discuss.

R.

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 18:48:58.
 12/02/2005 01:51:39 PM · #5
The question is: does society condone his actions? Theft (or burglary if that is the case) is a violation of societal laws. Unless the law has made an exception for these particular circumstances, he has violated the law. Knowing the penalty for his actions, he must face the consequences imposed. Ultimately, despite the issue of right or wrong, he has decided that saving his wife outweighs any consequences he may face. Although that may be admirable, he made his decision knowing the legalities and potential consequences. You create a very slippery slope when you begin condoning wrongful conduct based strictly on a set of circumstances.
12/02/2005 01:53:50 PM · #6
Originally posted by bear_music:
...would this make a difference?


No. Try leaving a few thousand on the counter and taking a car from a dealership. It's still theft. The question here IMO is whether it's OK to steal from a thief if it's for a noble cause. The answer for me is still no.
 12/02/2005 01:55:27 PM · #7
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
...would this make a difference?


No. Try leaving a few thousand on the counter and taking a car from a dealership. It's still theft. The question here IMO is whether it's OK to steal from a thief if it's for a noble cause. The answer for me is still no.


There ya go!

So examine the idea that it's OK (or not OK) to steal to save your wife's life if you're willing to pay the consequences mandated by law.

R.

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 18:55:48.
 12/02/2005 01:58:48 PM · #8
Yeah, I think that the money/cost of the drug is irrelevant to the issue. Stealing is wrong and punishable by society. No I don't condone his actions.

HOWEVER, if I were in that situation I might consider the punishment for stealing the drug as "worth" the price of saving my wife's life...

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 18:59:40.
 12/02/2005 01:59:26 PM · #9
Theft is theft. I would feel very sorry for the man's wife and would do anything to help them, but not be complicit - by way of condoning/not saying anything - in his actions. If I had the money it would be his. If I had the means to get it it would be his. But no...as scalvert said "two wrongs don't make a right."
 12/02/2005 02:00:51 PM · #10
The price isn't just the punishment of jail. The price is the degradation of societal values. This is a crucial piece of information in making a decision that we far too often overlook.

So it's "ok" for you to "pay" for your crime.
Is it then "ok" for the murderer to kill his co-workers at the post office if he's willing to go to jail?

How is that "ok?"
 12/02/2005 02:01:30 PM · #11
Originally posted by bear_music:
...examine the idea that it's OK (or not OK) to steal to save your wife's life if you're willing to pay the consequences mandated by law.


I think the premise is flawed. Even if you're willing to pay the consequences, it's still not OK. It thus becomes a question of whether you're willing to do something you KNOW is wrong to save a life. I think most people probably would break the law in a life-or-death situation, and whether others condone it is irrelevant.

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 19:02:56.
 12/02/2005 02:05:32 PM · #12
Originally posted by mavrik:
The price isn't just the punishment of jail. The price is the degradation of societal values. This is a crucial piece of information in making a decision that we far too often overlook.

So it's "ok" for you to "pay" for your crime.
Is it then "ok" for the murderer to kill his co-workers at the post office if he's willing to go to jail?

How is that "ok?"


Just for the sake of argument, there might be a qualitative difference between taking a man's life and "stealing" his invention by leaving "only" a $800 profit instead of a $1800 profit on the table. The life is irrevocable, the profit is intangible. You can turn this argument around and ask if it is "right" that a man make an $1,800 profit on something that has the power to save a life. I'm not taking a stance on this (yet), but how would you feel about the man who hoarded food during a famine and then let his neighbors die if they didn't meet his price?

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 19:06:13.
 12/02/2005 02:07:35 PM · #13
My answer would probably depend on the nature of her "need" for the drug -- will she die if she doesn't get it within the next 36 hours, or within the next two weeks?

In general, societies (theoretically) place a higher value on a human life than on property (right-wing ultra-capitalist oligarchs excepted).
 12/02/2005 02:09:30 PM · #14
Originally posted by bear_music:
I'm not taking a stance on this (yet), but how would you feel about the man who hoarded food during a famine and then let his neighbors die if they didn't meet his price?


Like I had met a man smart enough to stay alive?

I don't care what the guy wants to charge - if its HIS, its HIS. Taking it, deciding what's "enough" profit for him when it's HIS is wrong. 100% all the time wrong. There are few situations I can say that he "has to" share. Stealing is forcing him to give you something he didn't want to give you - it is HIS. What is difficult about that?

What if a guy walks into the shop the day after you steal the medicine with $2000 and wants the med for his dying wife, but you stole the last bit of it?
 12/02/2005 02:10:56 PM · #15
Originally posted by GeneralE:
(right-wing ultra-capitalist oligarchs excepted).


Ooh! That's me. Score one for the General! Capitalists, egoists, objectivists and non-Communists/Socialists pretty much think this is an open and shut case.
 12/02/2005 02:12:21 PM · #16
"If a man commit murder, should his father protect him and hide him?"

Kung: "He should hide him."
 12/02/2005 02:13:04 PM · #17
What if this price is so high because it is so difficult to produce?

bear_music asked, in my opinion, a great question.

What if this drug may only be produced once or twice and therefore has such a high price. What if the druggists own wife/son/daughter, or a member of your own family is sick? By robbing this drug, the man may be indirectly killing someone else, someone he does not even know.

Another important note is that this drug may help, and even if it does, does this man know how to administer it?

In my opinion, this man is displaying as much greed as the druggist is by charging $2000 for a life saving drug.
 12/02/2005 02:18:14 PM · #18
condone? no. forgive? yes.
12/02/2005 02:24:13 PM · #19
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
(right-wing ultra-capitalist oligarchs excepted).


Ooh! That's me. Score one for the General! Capitalists, egoists, objectivists and non-Communists/Socialists pretty much think this is an open and shut case.

... and own stock in the oil energy and pharmaceutical companies : )

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 19:24:59.
 12/02/2005 03:03:04 PM · #20
Originally posted by scalvert:
No. There are other (legal) ways to solve the problem. Take out a loan, take the story to the local newspaper, maybe trade business services with the druggist... two wrongs don't make a right.


Ditto
 12/02/2005 03:13:22 PM · #21
And then....would the wife had wanted to live if she could not have ever lived with the same man she married. (He was NOT a thief before)
 12/02/2005 03:14:13 PM · #22
Yes.

Ethical problems are different than legal problems. Legally it is clearly theft. Ethically, we must first ask ourselves what moral standard we are going to use. Utilitarianism, the greatest good, is a popular one. The good done by saving the wife's life outweights the evil done by stealing $1800.

As yourself this: Is the wife's life worth more than $1800? Most people would obviously answer yes.

The dilemma, as presented, does not allow us other thoughtful options, like getting a loan, so they are moot. The question, to me, boils down to: Is a person's life worth more than $1800 in property. My answer is yes.

This very scenario is occurring on a much larger scale. Taiwan announced they are producing the antiviral tamiflu without license from Roche, who owns it. Is this ethical?
 12/02/2005 03:18:03 PM · #23
What if by stealing the drugs he kills another victim of the same disease?

My daughter had this question in 10th grade psych class, we discussed it for days.
12/02/2005 03:23:29 PM · #24
Originally posted by idnic:
What if by stealing the drugs he kills another victim of the same disease?

My daughter had this question in 10th grade psych class, we discussed it for days.


Irrelevent because it was not in the original dilemma. What if the druggist was secretly a pedophile and planned on spending the money he made from his drug on a secret dungeon where he would repeatedly rape little girls?

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 20:23:56.
 12/02/2005 03:45:13 PM · #25
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Utilitarianism, the greatest good, is a popular one.


Utilitarianism has so many holes that it's virtually useless as an ethical system. If you lived in a small village with maybe 80 people - and the volcano god needed a sacrifice or he'd lava the village and the villagers offered you up and you went YOU WOULD BE AN IDIOT. You "saved" the rest of them, but YOU ARE DEAD. Not a very nice way to spend your karmic rewards.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/10/2025 04:48:03 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/10/2025 04:48:03 PM EDT.