Rapier Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 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 laboratory 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? -- My reasoning may be immature, but I will abide to it anyway: I agree with him, and would've done the same. Why? Because I'd prioritize my wife's life over someone else's property rights, or even above someone else's life (thus the "Yuri Lowell dilemma" about saving 1 person and sacrificing 100 isn't such a dilemma to me - I'd sacrifice thousands to save one person who is important to me, if I could). This means I am no higher than a level 2 in Kohlberg's moral development, but I digress. That's my personal reason only. Casting emotions aside, I can argue that the right to live is hierarchically higher than property rights (because property rights can only be assigned to living people, obviously... property rights are derivated from the right to live, the former may not exist when the latter also doesn't. And both being principles, they are applied universally and equally to every person). If one's property rights are putting another's right to live in danger, such as the druggist's refusal to lend the drug to Heinz's sickly wife, then those property rights should be violated on the basis that someone will lose their right to live as a consequence of their refusal, because their agreement would likely lead his wife to being cured of her disease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chastlily Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 In my opinion, there is no Should and Shouldn't in this kind of case. Nothing belongs to anybody so he's free to try to take it but he should be ready to face the consequences. If he manages to steal it sucessfully and to heal his wife then it's good, but if he doesn't then no one is to blame because no one did anything "wrong" considering our sick's society view of justice From a moral point of view, he was right on his side because a life was in danger but on the other side, he wasn't right because it's stealing. Such a case would be overlooked in most societies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Nothing belongs to anybody What makes you say so? I believe he should be exempt of being punished for the consequences, yet forced to compensate for it somehow (which I suppose counts as 'being punished'... I'm so bright, go me). If the right to live is hierarchically higher than property rights, then I should not be prosecuted because I protected mine or someone else's right to live. This also applies when someone is trying to kill another person ("an act on self-defense"). Therefore, he is justified in doing so, both morally and legally (if the law agrees with morality. If it doesn't, then it is not a morally right law). Edited December 17, 2014 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chastlily Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 What makes you say so? Well, in society things do belong to some people but to me, nothing really belongs to anybody. Of course there would be consequences to take something from someone who wanted to use it, but nothing is absolute. Of course I'd be pissed if someone took my computer because I feel that it belongs to me, but it's just how it is in society, in fact it doesn't belong to anybody. Same thing for the definition of "right", the only difference between Justice and Injustice is a point of view difference. To some people it's right for him to do it, for some it's not, but nothing is really set and the outcome will probably be the most popular point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Same thing for the definition of "right", the only difference between Justice and Injustice is a point of view difference. To some people it's right for him to do it, for some it's not, but nothing is really set and the outcome will probably be the most popular point of view. Under a relativist view, this affirmation is true. I disagree, though: Whether the majority believes (or decrees) x to be right or wrong is irrelevant to the truth of x being right/wrong. The truth is mind-independent, so things may be true/false even though a group believes/decrees it to be false/true (for example, geocentrism was a thing, yet it was wrong). This is why the majority has no bearing in deciding what is right or wrong on the sole basis that they have numbers (yes, democracies can go awfully wrong with this principle). Now then, discussing about the nature of morals is hard, and I feel like I am not mature enough for this, so pick your own choice. =P I only know that moral relativism (and subjectivism, although both are different cases) is wrong. For example, it was immoral to not kill Jews during the nazist government in Germany. Does it mean such practice was ok? I think even moral relativists would agree with me that it definitely wasn't (as a sidenote, this also leads me to think that morals are universal and single-natured, because otherwise how could we be so sure that persecuting and killing Jews is wrong?). Edited December 17, 2014 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? Yes, it's not even up to debate. I doubt the moral compass of anyone who says no. In my opinion, there is no Should and Shouldn't in this kind of case. An action can be significantly more right than wrong, in which case the action is overall righteous. Edited December 18, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Overall, Hienz could do it either way. If he was to break into the laboratory, I could definitely see why he would. On the other hand, it would not be immoral for him to let his wife die rather than break the law. In the event of this happening, an argument could absolutely be made in court that he had to save his wife. I don't think it is a question that it is moral for Hienz to save his wife. The real question is, should he be charged with theft? Another question could be if the Druggist finds out and tries to stop Hienz, should he kill him to get the drug? In addition, the druggist definitely is a greedy asshat for not giving the drug to Hienz at a discount, but at the same time reserves the right to do what he will with the drug. This is one of those cases where what is moral and people's rights come into conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 this just seems like an argument in favor of socialized medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 this just seems like an argument in favor of socialized medicine. I don't know, that might be a good idea. All that would really be doing would be changing the legality of Hienz's actions, not the morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 A human life is worth more than property... Also the later can be replaced, you cannot revive the deads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 I don't know, that might be a good idea. All that would really be doing would be changing the legality of Hienz's actions, not the morality. it was mostly a joke. a bad one, i see now, but yeah my opinion is similar to everyone else's. i see it more appropriate to save the life of someone rather than withhold property rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm gay dabadeedabada Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Break into his house and steal the drug, then leave the thousand dollars where it was. Compromise~ 'sides, if he doesn't use the $1000 to save his wife, he's technically conned all the people he borrowed money from. I think intellectual property laws in their current state (patents incl. drug patents, copyrights) are a bit overbearing anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 I do not agree with him, but if I was him, I would also do that. There are right and wrong, but there are also things you have to do no matter what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.