A moral dilemma (1 Viewer)

[funkshen]

What if the man robbed a rich guy's home and stole $2000 and used it to buy the drug? Wouldn't that change the situation completely?

Yes. And it's probably more feasible than breaking into a high security lab, or something.

But it isn't the hypothetical moral dilemma we're discussing so WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP YOU PENK.

the drug was stolen by Hienz. when someone steals from you, you dont expect them to leave money sufficeint to fund for 4 more replacements of the particular item stolen
( based on the fact the drug 200 dollars to make, thus with the 1000 heinz leaves the druggist, he can make 4 drugs )

wouldn't the druggist be happy?

you dont understand utility at all go away

 

[scuba_steve2121]

im saying that the prof is stupid because he set his prices way to high to tap into the market. his price is 10 times the cost to make said drug ffs. thus for him to have = supply and demand he would need to lower his prices.

or u know like somebody already said he could of had a payment plan or something if was so fing set on 2k for somthing that took $200 to make.

this is why i said he was stupid

its like if sombody made bread cost 2 grand ether they would find a differnt brand of bread. or if its the only bread maker around not buy bread at all, thus the company would die or u know......lower its prices?

 

[SylviaB]

he should have and the the police should have thrown him in jail

 

[chantal_3]

What if the man robbed a rich guy's home and stole $2000 and used it to buy the drug? Wouldn't that change the situation completely?

depends how rich the guy was, like if it was Bill gates, who i seriously doubt considering he would have a bitch of a security system but anyway i dont think he would notice the missing $2000

so.... if the guy stole the money from a rich dudes house its more of like achieving something with no respect or intregity. a similar situation is when you get 100% in an exam when you somehow got hold of the questions that were going to be asked and because you cheated there is no feeling of accomplishment as you knew you would smash it before you even did it.

 

[chantal_3]

Yes. And it's probably more feasible than breaking into a high security lab, or something.

But it isn't the hypothetical moral dilemma we're discussing so WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP YOU PENK.



you dont understand utility at all go away

i am sorry
i just want everyone to be happy

 

[SylviaB]

three cheers for arbitrary pick and choose morality

basically what you're all saying is that initiation of force (i.e. theft) is alright as long as you can demonstrate a "need" for it.

so yeah, dont complain the next time someone robs you at knife point, he probably NEEDS it.

 

[Omnipotence]

The reason we have money, a currency and trade is to advance humanity anyway. It's a sign of us being evolved, moral creatures beyond that of animals, we have a hint of altruism within us. Therefore it's the professors fault for being so insensitive and he got what he deserved. Do unto others as you want them to do unto you. The professor was robbing the man of his wife, all the man took was a drug. Think about that.

Have humans trully evolved? We still have primitive instincts that intrinsic in all of us but some are more hidden, the unconscience mind. E.g. When it becomes a matter of survival, you will see the revolting nature of humanity.

What dictates life or death, is it morals or money? Look at the world today and you tell me.

 

[Omnipotence]

Life is worth more than money is the basic root of the argument.

Then again, money determines the foundation of your life. Damn, this thread has got me thinking about the contradiction in life. Thanks alot OP.

 

[funkshen]

im saying that the prof is stupid because he set his prices way to high to tap into the market. his price is 10 times the cost to make said drug ffs. thus for him to have = supply and demand he would need to lower his prices.

or u know like somebody already said he could of had a payment plan or something if was so fing set on 2k for somthing that took $200 to make.

lol you're assuming the market conditions didn't dictate that $2000 was an appropriate price. Because he couldn't satisfy ONE CUSTOMER (Heinz) suddenly he's stupid and isn't acting rationally?

This is all assuming that he is the sole provider of the drug which isn't really an assumption congruent with the free market condition.

To be honest this situation probably wouldn't occur in the free market.. because the good Professor wouldn't have even invented his miracle drug without the ability to capture most if not all of its ludicrous profits!

edit: oh yeah and some poor dude who needs to spend ALL his money on a drug for his presumably dependent cancer-stricken wife isn't a credit risk at all right?

 

[HalcyonSky]

olol where is the moral dilemma

the girl i loves life > $1800 profit for some douche

 

[HalcyonSky]

three cheers for arbitrary pick and choose morality

basically what you're all saying is that initiation of force (i.e. theft) is alright as long as you can demonstrate a "need" for it.

so yeah, dont complain the next time someone robs you at knife point, he probably NEEDS it.

if an ethiopian kid robbed my house for the sole purpose of providing food for his family to survive, id be like oh okay
if a dude robbed my house of $200 of radium to save his dying wife which i was planning to sell for $2000, id be like lol k
then id buy better locks so it doesnt happen again

it's not even close to the scenario of say an abo robbing me at knifepoint to buy some ciggies and a stick of weed

 

[scuba_steve2121]

lol you're assuming the market conditions didn't dictate that $2000 was an appropriate price. Because he couldn't satisfy ONE CUSTOMER (Heinz) suddenly he's stupid and isn't acting rationally?

This is all assuming that he is the sole provider of the drug which isn't really an assumption congruent with the free market condition.

To be honest this situation probably wouldn't occur in the free market.. because the good Professor wouldn't have even invented his miracle drug without the ability to capture most if not all of its ludicrous profits!

edit: oh yeah and some poor dude who needs to spend ALL his money on a drug for his presumably dependent cancer-stricken wife isn't a credit risk at all right?

i was keeping in the limits of the situation according to op he was the only producer

lol yea i guess he would be a bit of a credit risk but since the wife has a rare type of cancer he isn't going to have many other customers.

it comes down to does he want to make a sale and make money or not at 2k i don't think so

my bread analogy still stands it would be stupid to raise prices to such an extent where u have no one buying your product. which is what the prof is doing because this all comes back to my original statement that the prof is stupid

 

[funkshen]

my bread analogy still stands it would be stupid to raise prices to such an extent where u have no one buying your product. which is what the prof is doing because this all comes back to my original statement that the prof is stupid

To be honest the OPs hypothetical doesn't lend itself well to economic interpretation. Your bread analogy is a bit rough but I agree that his business strategy isn't plausible (which is why the hypothetical doesn't lend itself to economic intuition). So let's stop with the economic insight;

Fuck that nerd I'd steal his drugs and his DVD player.

p.s. anyone who thinks their 'MORAL FIBRE' will remain in tact when they're faced with a life or death decision (of a loved one, no less) is joking themselves. Or they're a robot.

 

[57o1i]

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?

There is no right or wrong answer, the justification you use to come to your conclusion is what is of interest.

Kohlberg's stages of morality!! Holy hell, I miss Society and Culture.

I never have a clear answer to this one but about 80% of the time I think he should steal it. Standard stage 5 democratic government/utilitarianism principles ... people have a right to life etc, plus human life > property rights for the druggist.

I had to have the Stage 6 negative view pointed out to me by my teacher (stealing the drug deprives others who are also sick from accessing the medicine and they have as much of a right to life as Heinz's wife does) because I could only pick a positive response for Stage 6, but the negative side has something going for it assuming that there are only limited samples of the drug available.

Druggist is a bit of a douche for charging a 10x markup though.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

Then again, money determines the foundation of your life. Damn, this thread has got me thinking about the contradiction in life. Thanks alot OP.

True, but even those with absolutely nothing don't want to die (suicidal people excluded obviously) and life is priceless, something you cannot replace.

Money is an object. An inanimate object which the scientist values more than human life.

 

[Ritard_]

if an ethiopian kid robbed my house to feed his family i would kill him

 

[Slidey]

three cheers for arbitrary pick and choose morality

basically what you're all saying is that initiation of force (i.e. theft) is alright as long as you can demonstrate a "need" for it.

so yeah, dont complain the next time someone robs you at knife point, he probably NEEDS it.

No, it's nothing like that. Part of the problem is that you don't know how to use the word 'arbitrary'; there's nothing arbitrary about the decision to steal if it will save a life, as it is consistent with most peoples's ethical systems (i.e. life is more valuable than money).

The other problem is that you're implying that stealing (which you call 'force') to save a life is no different to stealing for greed, or even physical assault, which is an obvious strawman.

It's unfortunate that you need to use such devices of illogic as a crutch to prop up your argument.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

To be honest the OPs hypothetical doesn't lend itself well to economic interpretation. Your bread analogy is a bit rough but I agree that his business strategy isn't plausible (which is why the hypothetical doesn't lend itself to economic intuition). So let's stop with the economic insight;

Fuck that nerd I'd steal his drugs and his DVD player.

p.s. anyone who thinks their 'MORAL FIBRE' will remain in tact when they're faced with a life or death decision (of a loved one, no less) is joking themselves. Or they're a robot.

agreed

 

[Lolsmith]

a similar situation is when you get 100% in an exam when you somehow got hold of the questions that were going to be asked and because you cheated there is no feeling of accomplishment as you knew you would smash it before you even did it.

I'd feel fantastic. If it goes towards my final HSC mark and I didn't break the law to get it, I wouldn't care in the slightest. The HSC is just a pathway to get into uni so who cares, really?

 

[xxlmxx]

It's wrong, but I'd do it if I loved the person I guess... :/

like when u die, there is no need for money and all that crap but i understand that it is still wrong to do...