Heinz's Dilemma (1 Viewer)

[saggyjones]

A woman was near death from a very bad disease, 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 make. He paid $1000 for the radium and charged $10,000 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 get together only about $5000, which was 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." Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should he have stolen the drug and why?

 

[saggyjones]

Hopefully you thought about the question before looking at this post:

Here are Kohlberg's stages of moral development:

Level 1: Preconventional (before 9 years old)
Stage 1: egoistical-no right or wrong, just wants to avoid
Should steal- be blamed if wife dies
Shouldn't steal- might get caught and go to jail
Stage 2: Help someone if they help you, hurt them if they hurt you.
Golden Rule of children

Level 2: Conventional (9+)
Stage 3: Gain approval- care what others think
Should- people will think he's cruel if wife dies
Shouldn't- people will think he's a criminal
Stage 4: Law and Order- Law is moral guide (most people stay at
this stage)

Level 3: Post conventional, conceptual
Stage 5: Is law fair or just? Laws must change as world changes.
Laws are never absolute. Is law good for society as whole?
Should- not right to charge all you want for the drug
Shouldn't- property right laws are fair, but it's a tough situation
Stage 6: Less flexibility than stage five; Golden Rule at highest level
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

 

[Adrian]

Ah, the Les Miserables syndrome.

It is perfectly moral to protect yourself from being robbed, under any circumstances, at all costs. It is perfectly moral to save yourself or your loved ones from mortal peril at all costs, even if that involves theft.

 

[saggyjones]

I think Heinz should have stolen the drug, but I don't think he should have been put in that position in the first place because companies shouldn't be able to charge all they want for something people have a physical need for. He is justified because the laws are unfair. A company can still make a profit by selling the drug for $3000 or a price regulated by the government. And if someone still can't afford the drug, the government should provide money for them to buy it or just send the company money to vouch for the person.

When I first looked at this I got level 5 on the Kohlberg's development stage. What about all of you? Well i guess I'll see from responses.

 

[saggyjones]

Ah, the Les Miserables syndrome.

It is perfectly moral to protect yourself from being robbed, under any circumstances, at all costs. It is perfectly moral to save yourself or your loved ones from mortal peril at all costs.

But which would you have chosen?

 

[Adrian]

But which would you have chosen?

They're both equally valid.

 

[saggyjones]

They're both equally valid.

So what would you have done personally?

 

[Adrian]

So what would you have done personally?

Depends on which position I found myself in. If I found myself in the business owner's side, I would have defended myself from being robbed at all costs. If I found myself or my loved ones in mortal peril, I would have stolen from whoever I could in order to save myself/them.

 

[Adrian]

The Les Miserables rule may more easily be referred to as the Dog Eat Dog rule. Obviously, economics and the law tend to favor the business owner's point of view.

 

[saggyjones]

Depends on which position I found myself in. If I found myself in the business owner's side, I would have defended myself from being robbed at all costs. If I found myself or my loved ones in mortal peril, I would have stolen from whoever I could in order to save myself/them.

The question is this- Should he have stolen the drug and why? Let's say from an outsider's perspective.

 

[Adrian]

The question is this- Should he have stolen the drug and why? Let's say from an outsider's perspective.

I am an outsider.

 

[Adrian]

The point is, you do what you have to in order to survive on the most basic level. It's the whole pyramid of survival thing. For example, the need for air overtakes the need for water. The need for water overtakes the need for food, and the need for food overtakes the need for shelter, and the need for shelter overtakes the need for personal fulfillment.

The need for oxygen, for example, will certainly trump nearly all other morality concerns, certainly at least the morality of theft.

 

[Adrian]

Trust me. If I was dying and I knew you had the cure, I would rob you. Rest assured of that.

And If I had to protect my property against anybody, I would do everything in my power to do so. You can rest assured of that too.

 

[Adrian]

On the business owner's side, there's a Jewish saying that goes something like, "Give not so much lest ye become a beggar yourself." So I guess I'd have to say that if it was within my financial capability to give, I would. But that's not really the question, is it? The question is, will I permit others to rob from me?

 

[Adrian]

Ah, here it is. Maslow's Pyramid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

 

[saggyjones]

On the business owner's side, there's a Jewish saying that goes something like, "Give not so much lest ye become a beggar yourself." So I guess I'd have to say that if it was within my financial capability to give, I would. But that's not really the question, is it? The question is, will I permit others to rob from me?

No, the question is "Should Heinz have stolen the drug?"

 

[Adrian]

No, the question is "Should Heinz have stolen the drug?"

I'm sorry, I thought I already answered that.

 

[saggyjones]

The point is, you do what you have to in order to
survive on the most basic level.

The business didn't need to charge $10000 for basic survival needs, he could have charged $2000 and made a profit, or $5000 (even just once) and allow Heinz to buy the drug. Heinz's wife, on the other hand, had a physical need for the drug.

It's the whole pyramid of survival thing. For example, the need for air overtakes the need for water. The need for water overtakes the need for food, and the need for food overtakes the need for shelter, and the need for shelter overtakes the need for personal fulfillment.

The need for oxygen, for example, will certainly trump nearly all other morality concerns, certainly at least the morality of theft.

You can survive for longer without food than without shelter, but that's beside the point.

 

[saggyjones]

I'm sorry, I thought I already answered that.

Apology accepted. But where is your answer?

lol we have the same amount of posts, pretty cool.

 

[Adrian]

The business didn't need to charge $10000 for basic survival needs, he could have charged $2000 and made a profit, or $5000 (even just once) and allow Heinz to buy the drug. Heinz's wife, on the other hand, had a physical need for the drug.

Irrelevant to my point, which is related to the point of survival.

You can survive for longer without food than without shelter, but that's beside the point.

The point in this is that certain needs would be so basic as to trump even basic morality.

 

[Adrian]

Apology accepted. But where is your answer?

Again, that it is acceptable to steal when you or your immediate loved ones are in mortal peril, and that it is perfectly acceptable to do anything in your power to defend your livelihood.

Equally.

lol we have the same amount of posts, pretty cool.

Yes. "Cool."

 

[saggyjones]

Irrelevant to my point, which is related to the point of survival.

Irrelevant to the thread, which is related to Heinz's dilemma. If you can't link your post to the thread topic, why post in this thread?

The point in this is that certain needs would be so basic as to trump even basic morality.

Back to my earlier post:
The business didn't need to charge $10000 for basic survival needs, he could have charged $2000 and made a profit, or $5000 (even just once) and allow Heinz to buy the drug. Heinz's wife, on the other hand, had a physical need for the drug.

How did the druggist fulfill a basic need by charging that much for the drug?

 

[saggyjones]

Again, that it is acceptable to steal when you or your immediate loved ones are in mortal peril, and that it is perfectly acceptable to do anything in your power to defend your livelihood.

Equally.

How is the druggist's livelihood being threatened by charging less for the drug, even if it's one time?

Yes. "Cool."

I don't understand what the quotes signify, can you clarify?

 

[nes]

I believe that...

If its the druggist's property, then stealing it would have *legal* consequences. I usually put self preservation ahead of the law. So if people need the drug, then I think some would steal it even if theres a chance of getting legally punished (if caught ), since I think they would consider death a worse consequence than being caught stealing. I might steal the drug for someone else's life based on the chances of getting caught, consequences, and the whole situation. If this druggist leaves this drug right near a window that I can break where nobody is around then I might do it. If this druggist has more security than a bank and with lots of people near the area, then I would most likely not consider stealing the drug for someone else (if it carried consequences if caught). If it was my own life and stealing the drug is the most reasonable way to live, then I would try to steal it.

The same drug that you steal might possibly be needed soon for someone else's life. Situations such as these happen all the time, for example Africans fighting for food. The food that you might steal might be needed for someone else's life. The bible has a commandment, no stealing at all. I can see how this makes sense. Now if this druggist has 1,000 pills, and you only needed 1 pill to live...

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Of course he should have stolen the drug, along with all the other drugs in the place to make it look like some random junkie did it. Because:
• the woman lives
• the husband gets to be a hero (and has some nice drugs to celebrate with or sell for a profit)
• the druggist gets reimbursed by his insurance, so he looses nothing out of it
• the police gets the relatively easy task of hunting down junkies
• the junkies thrown into jail get the opportunity to clean up their act or the connections to move on to more profitable crimes
• the city politicians get to an issue to bullshit the public into re-electing them
• the pharmaceutical industry gets to keep bilking the public with exorbitantly expensive drugs

Everyone wins, except for the public at large, but the public was already being screwed so badly by the politicians and the drug and insurance companies (as evinced by Heinz’s need to steal this drug) that they won’t even notice the minute increase in their daily ***-pummeling.

If I already expected and anticipated being screwed over by the system, and couldn't conceive of things being otherwise, does that mean that Kohlberg would say I’m operating on at stage 6 morality? After all, I would be “doing unto others what I would have them do unto me.”


But then again, I’ve been playing Shadowrun recently, so maybe I’m just being cynically amoral. Meh.:shrug: