|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 08, 2011 08:03 PM |
|
|
Having given the problem some more thought, I don't think the man should have broken into the pharmacy. His desires do not give him the right to harm others. He should've been prepared, or at least taken out a loan (even if the pharmacist refuses to be paid back later, the bank won't refuse).
JJ:
Hospitals are required to treat all emergency patients regardless of ability to pay, but I don't think private individuals are required to do anything.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 08:59 PM |
|
|
Being forced to get into eternal debt is not a human right.
Being forced to give up your job and file for bankruptcy is not a human right either.
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 09:09 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 21:18, 08 Nov 2011.
|
|
I don't quite understand why the pharmacist is considered innocent if he refuses to give the medicine under the premise that he'll even get paid much more than it actually costs. He's consciously making the choice the let the woman die and his only excuse is that he wants to charge the husband an unreasonably large sum for the means to save her. I think this could even indirectly constitute a crime under certain law systems and from a less strict point of view there is nothing that would justify an action explained purely from his "greedy" point of view.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 09:23 PM |
|
|
I don't agree that the man shouldn't have stolen the medicine, but just for the sake of throwing a cog in the machine: don't we willingly allow impoverished people to die by not giving our money/time on a daily basis?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 09:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't agree that the man shouldn't have stolen the medicine, but just for the sake of throwing a cog in the machine: don't we willingly allow impoverished people to die by not giving our money/time on a daily basis?
I wouldn't know, I never encountered anybody like that in my community, but internal and external.
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 10:58 PM |
|
|
|
It's not the same thing. Most people restrain themselves from being too charitable because they need the money for their own and their close people's survival. The part about the pharmacist refusing to get paid less than he finds acceptable even though this amount (the 1000$ that the husband can pay) exceeds by far his own spending has nothing to do with charity. There is no explanation given for this decision apart from "I discovered the thing, I'll charge you as much as I want, plebe!" So in the commoner's case where he/she decides not to help some impoverished people on daily basis it's a calculated decision aimed at sustaining himself and his family, i.e. to a large extent an inability to help (no matter whether he/she wants it or not) while in the pharmacist's case it's simply an unwillingness to help.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2011 11:25 PM |
|
|
well in some countries, charity is payed through high taxes that go to poor people etc
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 12:06 AM |
|
|
The pharmacist owes the woman nothing. (How could he?) Why should he be forced to do something for her? He doesn't have a duty to keep her alive. He will only help if he is compensated as much as he is requesting, and if the guy doesn't pay him that, then the pharmacist will refuse, as he perfectly has the right to.
His action (or, rather, lack thereof) doesn't require any justification beyond "I didn't want to." There are starving children in Africa whom I'm sure you could help more than you do now (I'm sure you could pinch a few pennies somewhere), and yet you don't. How do you justify that?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 12:24 AM |
|
|
The pharmacist knows that his inaction will certainly lead to the woman's death, he has the means to prevent that, he's offered a compensation but he refuses. Like I said, this could be considered a crime. Of course that's not the point - if you think that "I didn't want to" is sufficient explanation for such behaviour, then you should not be surprised at all that he may be robbed, beaten badly and maybe even killed. Because, you see, for the husband he'll be just a greedy swine and his value will be reduced from that of a human being to that of a swine and only the fear from the law may prevent the robbery and the other eventual... problems if the husband sees no other option to save his wife. Thick-skinned approaches to a problem like this inevitably result in a crime at some point because people are no robots.
As for the unrelated Africa thing - apart from the fact that you have no idea if I'm helping the Africans or not - I have already answered. Read carefully.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 12:32 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:40, 09 Nov 2011.
|
Quote:
To me it looks like a quite good contribution, except for point 3 which is a bit too short, even if the implied parts explains it perfectly.
Thank you diablo for being there for me. Now JJ's meanness cannot hurt me as much as it did.
Quote:
There are starving children in Africa whom I'm sure you could help more than you do now (I'm sure you could pinch a few pennies somewhere), and yet you don't. How do you justify that?
Physical obstruction. At least in my case. I do tend to hurt my wallet on a regular basis cause of local gypsy kids staring hungrily at the baker shop, the little buggers. But never mind.
By the way you've shifted from the second kind of people I was talking about to the first one. I'm surprised you even made that stroll through the middle side.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 12:37 AM |
|
|
Zeno:
In that case, do you think the husband would be justified in robbing the pharmacist and even beating him badly and killing him? Do you think it's acceptable for a private citizen to use violence against people who do you no harm but simply don't do what you want them to? (Note: I am not implying that you think this, just asking. You're quite right in saying that the pharmacist's refusal increases his chances of being robbed.)
Think about it this way. Imagine the pharmacist doesn't have the cure. In that case, he can't be obligated to supply it because he doesn't have it. Now suppose he acquires the cure. How does that mean that he should be forced to use it?
As for the starving children in Africa, many people could survive while still donating a lot more money to charity. Don't buy that big-screen TV. Buy cheaper food. Get a second job. It's unpleasant, but it's nothing compared to the help that those poor children will get, right? Right?
Bak:
Quote:
it was her family's fault that they didn't earn enough money for the cure anyway (no matter the opportunities they had - it's capitalism so they must have had an opportunity
It has nothing to do with "opportunity" (though sometimes it's brought up as a secondary argument). It's not a question of whose "fault" it is, or whether she could have possibly have done anything to have enough money to pay for it. It's plausible that it would have been impossible. The main point is that, no matter what, they do not have to help someone if they don't want to - especially not a stranger.
And you could probably help more. Unless you're already dirt-poor, you could always give something up and donate it to someone who "needs it more than you do". You're posting on HC when you could be working. You could sell your computer and buy an older, cheaper one. Etc.
Quote:
By the way you've shifted from the second kind of people I was talking about to the first one. I'm surprised you even made that stroll through the middle side.
I confess I hadn't given the problem much thought the first time. After thinking about it more, I came to a different conclusion. My first thought was that perhaps it was possible to maintain Pareto efficiency, but then I decided that the problem was more difficult than that and even with compensation, Pareto efficiency would not be maintained.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 12:59 AM |
|
|
I'd go to any lengths to see to my wife's health, though breaking in to the shop wouldn't be my first option.  It's not about what's "right" (universally) it's about what's right for you; your the one who has to live with the consequences of your actions and I can honestly say that it is worth it, from where I'm standing anyhow.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 01:23 AM |
|
|
To throw in another thought; Would it be OK for the man to steal the remaining 1000$ from some of the family members or friends that he loaned money from? They are just as much "obliged" to help him as the pharmacist, if not more.
Or perhaps rob a bank and take enough money to buy the medicine for all the people that need it?
These actions could be defended by the same reasoning that make it morally right for the man to steal the medicine from the pharmacist.
And I also believe that the "starving people in Africa" is a valid point. By the same reasoning it would be morally right for them to steal the computer you are sitting at to get enough food for their family, if you didn't give it to him in exchange for everything he got when he asked for it.
Situational ethics is just another form of consequentialism. Aside from not working, it's a subjective form of ethics, and anarchistic by nature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 01:40 AM |
|
|
Wow, this one exploded.
Having not read every response, I want to ask:
I'm wondering if it would change anyone's conclusion if Heinz merely perceived that the druggist had a drug that would help his wife.
In addition, the problem is formulated in such a way to make you dislike the druggist (because he's perceived as being greedy). What if the druggist doesn't give a reason for refusing to sell it. Or, even better, what if the druggist refuses to sell the drug because he doesn't think it'd be ethical to sell the drug to someone that (in the druggist's opinion) would not have a very good chance of making use of it. I.e., the druggist says that Heinz's wife is too progressed in her illness and has a low chance of survival and someone else could make better use of the limited supply. Is Heinz still justified in stealing the drug?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 01:54 AM |
|
|
I think it's hard to deal with a concept of what is justified on a social level in general. I mean of course it's not okay in the eyes of the druggist that someone took something for him (or whoever Heinz had to steal from in the end), but for Heinz I'm quite confident the world has turned black and white and for him the road is pretty clear.
It's in such a situation Heinz may need as much help as his wife. So he can be certain everything possible is done for her. It's one of the reasons to have a society in the first place, after all, if the laws do not make a society worthwhile, why should people want to respect those rules? It'd, in my opinion, be no different than ancient overlods having ruled over a civilization for centuries and when someone in that society questions it all, all he gets back is an authorital response, and the promise of punishment (either through physical coercion, or just that the good ol' "things would be worse if it was different").
It reminds me of a movie I once saw, where a guy is travelling through Asia, and gets arrested and ends up in prison. While in prison, he is told someone close to him is having a fatal disease and wants him to come home. However being locked up in prison makes it pretty hard. In the end, he accidently helps another convict (who told him about a secret flower, which can cure every disease if you eat it) escape, and this other convict, now seeing the traveller as a friend, takes him along for the escape. In the end, the other convict ends up getting fatally wounded, but he manages to tell the location of the flower to our hero, who finds it and brings it back home. It so happens that he's right on time to actually feed the plant to the fatal ill person. Few moments after the person is no more.
Turns out the plant was some kind of drug plant and all it did was make people feel good.
But I can very well follow this guys motivation. It's clearly something important and in the position of powerlessness he must have been in, it seems like an obvious choice, despite all the dangers he actually went through, and despite that it didn't help at all in the end.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 02:26 AM |
|
|
Odd. I never disliked the druggist for greed nor did I view him as the bad guy in this scenario. Maybe I'm too far gone... Damn you Juris Doctorate!!!
Anyways, to me the motivation for refusing the medicine is immaterial. In the end, if Heinz steals the medicine for his wife, he is the wrong. While actign with noble intentions, they are still selfish. He wants to improved the life of someone he cares about at the expense of an innocent victim.
From Heinz's point of view, naturally his actions will be justified. The ends will justify the means. I doubt the victim would feel the same way. A jury might but I would be surprsied if a judge did. It's just a matter of perspective.
@JJ
The only reason I discussed the legal angle is because you stated that a jury would not convict him for his motivations.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 08:46 AM |
|
|
Instead of slightly altering the ingredients of the story (by the way, it helps, if you don't use real figures, but X, 10X and 5X and choose X accordingly so that regular stuff like loans won't work), I would rather alter the perspective.
I don't care about Heinz and the druggist at all. What they do is theirs, and no matter how they and especially Heinz behaves, I do not want to judge their behaviour.
Instead I would rather like you to put yourselves in the shoes of both druggist and Heinz. The question isn't what Heinz should or should not do, the question is actually what WOULD YOU do.
The actual problem here is to judge others behaviour without being in their shoes. The druggst MAY have the law on his side (but not in all countries - there are those in which you could sue him to help) - if he doesn't, the dilemma is meaningless. So IF the druggist DOES have the law on his side, law or not, are we always making use of our rights? Will we play the stereo on block level until ten p.m. sharp, because we are allowed to and are not interested in the others?
And what if we had a dying wife (I had, by the way)? What would WE do in such a situation?
So the question isn't what we think others SHOULD do, the question is, in such a situation, no matter WHAT the participating people do, are we prepared to JUDGE them for what they do?
I'm not.
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 11:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The question isn't what Heinz should or should not do, the question is actually what WOULD YOU do.
Morality is exactly about what a person should or should not do.
Quote:
So the question isn't what we think others SHOULD do, the question is, in such a situation, no matter WHAT the participating people do, are we prepared to JUDGE them for what they do?
I'm not.
But just a minute ago you judged their actions, saying "putting the need of his beloved wife above the greed of the other is perfectly fine".
We judge what others do all the time, and it's the very basis for having a judicial system. If one has a subjective moral system, it would be impossible to judge any action, because the standard for what is right and wrong is ultimately yourself. But such a system can never work in reality, and is impossible to live out consistently because of our human nature.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 12:12 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 12:27, 09 Nov 2011.
|
Quote:
In that case, do you think the husband would be justified in robbing the pharmacist and even beating him badly and killing him? Do you think it's acceptable for a private citizen to use violence against people who do you no harm but simply don't do what you want them to?
The pharmacist does harm. He is provided with the knowledge that his action/inaction will reduce the chances for the woman's survival to the very minimum at best. As a pharmacist, he knows that the drug could save her life, that's why he invented it in the first place, yet again he refuses to give the woman that chance. He is thus intentionally increasing the chances for her death without being threatened in any way himself and is even offered to receive a substantial payment (possible even the entire demanded amount, if he agrees to take the 2000$ later). His action is selfish to the extent of being anti-social. The husband has no way to make him give the drug willingly and can't pay, hence the pharmacist - through his own refusal to assist (not to "help" mind you, he is not offered to altruistically give the drug as a present but to be remunerated) - is significantly increasing the chances for another anti-social act, this time directed against himself. And this is completely natural, law or no law.
On the other hand, from a legal point of view the fact that the pharmacist is formally allowed to consciously refuse assistance - under the premise that this is not punishable - which could save another person's life and cause no harm to either himself or anybody else, is an obvious gap in the system which will eventually receive its regulation if the society demands it. Otherwise the law will lose touch with the reality which will render it ineffective. If the society demands no such regulation though, then it accepts the status quo and the individuals will have to deal with what the majority enforces on them. And again - this is just from the formal legal system's point of view, there are other systems which regulate the people's social behaviour.
Quote:
As for the starving children in Africa, many people could survive while still donating a lot more money to charity. Don't buy that big-screen TV. Buy cheaper food. Get a second job. It's unpleasant, but it's nothing compared to the help that those poor children will get, right? Right?
Wrong. People who are "surviving" from purely economical perspective are doing mostly that and can hardly afford to do something else, including to regularly give their money for charity. What they could give now they will often save (not necessarily in the form of banknotes or bank savings, there are many types of savings) because future crises are inevitable, that's a flaw of the market economy which will never be fixed and people know it. In the long run, such people are mostly incapable of charity.
And then again, the whole thing in the dilemma was never about charity.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 12:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The question isn't what Heinz should or should not do, the question is actually what WOULD YOU do.
Morality is exactly about what a person should or should not do.
Quote:
So the question isn't what we think others SHOULD do, the question is, in such a situation, no matter WHAT the participating people do, are we prepared to JUDGE them for what they do?
I'm not.
But just a minute ago you judged their actions, saying "putting the need of his beloved wife above the greed of the other is perfectly fine".
We judge what others do all the time, and it's the very basis for having a judicial system. If one has a subjective moral system, it would be impossible to judge any action, because the standard for what is right and wrong is ultimately yourself. But such a system can never work in reality, and is impossible to live out consistently because of our human nature.
What I mean is something completely different. On what grounds would we judge the behaviour of Heinz WRONG? EITHER way? Ultimately, if he does nothing, you might say, 1) she's terminally ill, 2) there is a cure, 3) why didn't he do MORE. If he does SOMEthing, you might say, he broke the law.
IS THERE REALLY AN ABSOLUTE MORAL THAT WOULD SAY RIGHT OR WRONG?
It is true, I said, he should take it. But what I actually meant was:
I WOULD TAKE IT, IF I WAS IN HIS SHOES.
However, because of this i would NOT say, it is wrong when he just leaves it be.
This is something everyone has to decide FOR THEMSELVES - but not for others.
As a footnote, this has nothing to do with the actual law. If a law is violated, punishment may and probably should follow. But that has nothing to do with the actual situation. Just think about the fact, that the law and its enforcement will generally become active only when the law HAS BEEN violated. Naturally, from the point of view of the potential victims of such a violation of the law, their interest lies in PREVENTING the violation.
Quite obviously this leaves much room for debatable actions, and I don't think there is a general answer to the question of what one SHOULD do and what not.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
