|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted November 09, 2011 01:45 PM |
|
|
Everyone is judged daily. Not to mention that what you write is not part of your principles. You are pathetic JJ. Your mental age is 5 years old.
____________
The empty set
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 02:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Everyone is judged daily. Not to mention that what you write is not part of your principles. You are pathetic JJ. Your mental age is 5 years old.
It may be that everyone is judged daily indeed, but I think the rest of your post proves my point impressively, that we were all better off, if people would be a bit less trigger-happy with the judging business, so I should probably thank you for that post, but you have to understand, that I prefer to spare my thanks for a worthier occasion.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 02:59 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 14:59, 09 Nov 2011.
|
@dimis
You can say what you need to say without calling someone stupid or pathetic.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 03:56 PM |
|
|
This may be going in the wrong direction (if so, sorry), but I personally think it's a stretch to blame the druggist. Even blaming anyone, apart from the disease (yeah I blame non-humans), seems out of place, in my opinion.
I mean, it's such a huge gray zone for when we've responsibility to help others. There are of course very obvious situations and in some degree I'm not surprised that some people would find this one of those obvious situations. Though in my opinion, such coercion is not really something we want, people should help of their own free will, but that's just my opinion. Another situation, which I think is obvious for many is if we go to the other end of the spectrum, where someone won't have to sacrifice money to help someone else, but his life. Now it seems okay not to help, even if sacrificing your own life would safe the life of many, it'd not be "evil" to not commit suicide. For the less obvious situations, I imagine temporary, but high, emotional pain, where you've to endure some kind of unspeakable horror, but may not even have any recollection of this event later on, and by doing so, you're (at least from the perspective of those involved), certain to save a lot of others which is assumed to be your equals.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 04:48 PM |
|
|
|
err... the pharmacist isn't asked to make a sacrifice
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 05:38 PM |
|
|
"Theft" or "not properly respecting others property and rights" is the worst crime, or at the least that is the main moral of the people claiming that there can be no justification of infringing on the Burgoise rights?
-
-
V: Just a observation. Moral dillemas is about moral and... a holy moral is a bit different than what we view normal morals as.
____________
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 06:20 PM |
|
|
Diablo are you going to provide any actual input or should I be content with you randomly spurting out nonsense? 
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 08:13 PM |
|
|
Well I don't think there is a person here who would actually just sit back and watch their loved one die a slow death, rather than break into a pharmacist and get the drugs your loved one needs to live.
Hell I would happily go to prison in this case if it meant saving the one I loved. No contest. I'd go further than that too.
Although I wouldn't just go running head first into the pharmacists door without some pleading and trying first.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Duke_Falcon
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 09:29 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:47, 09 Nov 2011.
|
Hard matter.
Moral demands to follow the rules and rules clearly opposites your hearth what demands to save your beloved one.
If someone steal pharma...(sorry, hard word, I'll use "X" instead!) so if someone steal "X" to save the life of the person who he\she loves I think it could be acceptable as a person.
But not as a society! Society demand to accept and follow the rules otherwise everything will collapse into chaos.
And some people are raised or trained to blindly follow the rules and these people will not tolerate those whom follow their heart instead the rules.
If I were in this situation I simply do not know what to do. I personally do what need to be done to save my loved one and will break the rules even though I am conditioned to follow strict rules if I ordered so.
But if I not ordered to do so then I will steal to save my loved.
And you know what?
**** you society!
That is my opinion about this matter and sorry if it is not constructive at all...
MOD NOTE: Please censor your language appropriately.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 09:57 PM |
|
|
Zeno:
It's true that the pharmacist's inaction is increasing the chances of her death, but that doesn't mean he's harming her. You can't harm someone unless you do something to them (or fail to do something you've agreed to do). Imagine the pharmacist and cure didn't exist. The wife would still die. If introducing an unhelpful pharmacist into the scenario doesn't change her circumstances in any way, then he can't be said to be harming her.
You also didn't answer my questions. 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?
Quote:
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.
Most people in first-world countries are doing more than "surviving".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Duke_Falcon
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2011 10:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
MOD NOTE: Please censor your language appropriately.
Sorry Corribus! Next time I'll do, promise!
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 10, 2011 03:42 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 03:47, 10 Nov 2011.
|
This thread grows faster than Adrius' penis when someone posts new Skyrim screenshots somewhere.
See what the thing is, MVass, about that "everyone is guilty of inaction because everyone can help out more" bit.
First off, kudos to Zeno for raising a solid point there, about the imminent crises and similar flaws of the ever-shifting capitalist system, and the need to secure the well-being of your family in any way you can. Changing that would require reforms on a far grander scale (as I mentioned about a page ago) than what we're talking about right now. So let's take a look from the more personal side, as folks who probably won't be able to change anything that major, and who are trying to make do with what they've got.
The way I see it, I think it's perfectly possible, at this present, wobbly and squeaky as it is, to find a healthy balance between altruism and hedonism. Why not.
You can't expect everyone to go to such admirable lengths like humanitarians risking their necks to get some food to kids in African warzones, not everyone'd even be good at that. You also can't ask people to sleep on the floor or risk their kids ending up in poverty or without a proper education if they lose their job tomorrow. Besides, something has to keep the market and the standards and whatnot going. Hell, something has to keep you going, as well. So, sure, go out with the pals, have a drink or ten, buy that large-ass TV, spend the weekend in Florida, shove that undetermined amount of money between that stripper's boobs, whatever ticks your fancy, that's all cool. Just watch out that you don't overdo it, lest it all starts getting in the way of yourself (anything can be a drug) - and keep that hand ready to lend anytime. You can always get some chocolates and ice-cream or whatever for the local gypsy kids - alright, bad example, you don't have those in America. You can get a homeless guy a solid new scarf for the winter, or more, if you're feeling generous. Whatever. You can't spend everything you have on getting the 6 kajillion homeless people in America scarves, but you can do your part. And, God willing, maybe more than that.
Yeah that little Pareto on your shoulder's probably gonna frown and nag about what he calls "efficiency". But who cares. Pareto was talking economics. That specific bit you're trying to live your life by is one of the simplest terms in a far bigger picture, a minimal notion of efficiency, a small variable in a giant formula. If there wasn't so much more to it, it'd be like maths without geometry - pretty impossible to imagine, except for the most basic of concepts. When Pareto wrote what he wrote, much like when Jesus said a lot of things, he didn't mean it to be used to make various Ebenezer Scrooges feel better about their shortcomings. And make no mistake, callousness is a shortcoming, an objective ethical failure as a human being.
Which leads us to the bad guy in this story, which you say has the right to withhold that cure, even though he would even draw a profit from selling it at a discount. Right? What's a right? Where do those come from? I see the law giving the pharmacist the power to refuse to help, and calls it his right, but is that good enough? Is that "right" enough?
You don't have to answer that. Maybe it is. Maybe you're correct. Let's say you are.
And then, again, we end up with the large-scale issue.
What about that woman's right to live? Is it normal that the only one with the power to save a life has no obligation to do it? Or should, perhaps, a man who invents a cure for a deadly disease receive the honours and a hefty compensation as both a reward and an incentive for future research, but the cure made available to anyone in need? Just an example of an alternative method of dealing with the problem, which would prevent this whole issue from happening.
Finally, of course the other guy shouldn't break his head and take his medicine. But if he did, I'd understand him, maybe I'd do the same if I had no other options left. I'd know it to be wrong, of course. And whoever did something like that would have to answer for it. This man in question knows it, and it's probably because of those consequences he's willing to suffer for his loved one that most of us sympathize with him.
You guys most likely already said most of this somewhere along the discussion, now that I think about it. But never mind.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2011 08:38 AM |
|
|
Why are you all so keen on proving that doing or not doing something is "right" or "wrong".
Aren't most of the people here morale RELATIVISTS? What has happened to you? Suddenly believing in absolute values?
Is there really an objective, impartial position here? If hubbie steals the cure, he's guilty of breaking a law, but that doesn't make him morally bad: if you break every traffic rule to drive a guy with a heart attack to the next hospital, you broke a couple of laws as well. It has a reason those rules are in effect, and if things break bad, breaking those rules may lead to a real collision desaster resulting in much more damage.
However, that's not the point. The point is, that there is a situation for one or more specific persons in which their possible actions may have a profound effect on the outcome. The decision what to do is very personal, and I doubt there are universal guidelines. It may involve breaking the law. Depending on what is at stake, that may be a small price to pay, including a penalty.
The same applies to looking to the other side. Sure, if you are a wealthy person it is of course your right to take a walk through the poorest quarter of the third world town you just making a holiday in. Sure, you CAN sport jewellery and a big wallet - after all, the law is protecting you...
Note, that the law has nothing to do with it. If the law has been broken, the case may go to court. Theft is punishable. However, there were no base motives involved. From the perspective of the hubbie it was worth a try, and if things go bad he may have to walk to prison - but how on Earth could one say he was WRONG to try it?
In last consequence this is also true for the druggist - can we really say it was WRONG of him to ask the price he did? We don't know anything about the situation - maybe he needs the money for something else ... maybe HIS wife is ALSO terminally ill, who knows. Sure, it MIGHT just be ordinary greed, and confronted with someone's immediate death he MIGHT sell cheaper, but since the law is backing him up, it's ultimately HIS decision, and HE is the one who has to live with it, if the wife dies.
There are a couple of scenarios that would bring us in as judges - if anyone of those people would go to court:
a) the druggist has been robbed and sues (police looks into it)
b) wife dies and hubbie sues druggist because he didn't help
c) before any of that happens hubbie sues druggist to help
Everything else I'd say it's a decision everyone has to make for themselves.
PS: My opinion in those 3 cases would depend on more information. Is there enough of the live-saving drug for everyone who needs it or not? Is the druggist wealthy or not? Did hubbie make use of all means to get the money?
In all cases it's a court thing and judgement is ultimately based on the law.
This is NOT, what is called for here. Here we are supposed to make a moral verdict, and since I don't believe in absolute morals I can't make one, only say what I would probably do under the given circumstances.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2011 08:51 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 09:04, 10 Nov 2011.
|
what's the point with charity? the pharmacist has the opportunity to help while making 400% profit. I don't call it charity 
how often do we hear about people being terminally ill and needing money for an operation and we refuse to pay because we don't believe them? (well of course in that case we aren't getting paid, and often we are expected to trust blindly)
obviously, some people (mvass?) can't put themselves in Heinz's shoes (and that's understandable). personally I've already been in a situation where I felt ready to risk almost anything.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 10, 2011 08:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Zeno:
It's true that the pharmacist's inaction is increasing the chances of her death, but that doesn't mean he's harming her. You can't harm someone unless you do something to them (or fail to do something you've agreed to do). Imagine the pharmacist and cure didn't exist. The wife would still die. If introducing an unhelpful pharmacist into the scenario doesn't change her circumstances in any way, then he can't be said to be harming her.
You also didn't answer my questions. 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?
"Blackmail is ok as long as its done indirectly" is what I read from your post.
You know what? If the pharmacist says he has a cure, and the doctor to says that, both are them guilty of severe amounts of lie if found out. So its not a matter of "negative existence to ignore the question", but "valid source says there is a existence we must acknowledge".
And to get into the area where it really bothers me: Capital holders can hold the entire population of a country hostage by simply hoarding and refusing to spend money. Lets say I own a critical part of a small town infastructure, some large factory. I can lay off and fire a lot of people, creating a labor shortage, reducing the amount of money spent in town, which again harms the local shops, which again reduces the money flow and which again leads to a ghost town if taken far enough. If you take this to national level, you have the reason why every single large bubble is so bad: The capital owners, the 1% stops spending money, resulting in capital stagnation, result in unemployment, resulting in less revenue and then resulting in more unemployment until the marked reaches a bottom.
And you know what? You say "They have the full freedom to do so.", because you believe "a persons freedom is absolute".
And? No they don't. Their freedom stops where others freedom exist. You don't have a right to harm people just because you didn't cause the problem directly.
You don't have a right to drive past a car accident without calling 911 unless there is already a bunch of people standing there and helping.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2011 09:59 AM |
|
|
Bak:
Quote:
You can't expect everyone to go to such admirable lengths like humanitarians risking their necks to get some food to kids in African warzones, not everyone'd even be good at that.
That's not an argument. I understand that people don't always do what they should do, but that mean they shouldn't try. If you think starving children in Africa deserve your money more than you do, and then you don't donate until you really can't anymore, then you probably don't really think they deserve your money. Sure, you think, it's nice to help them out once in a while, but my comfort comes first - which is, of course, perfectly fine. What's wrong is when people who think "it's nice to help, but I'm more important" make the "they deserve the money more" argument, because they don't really believe it.
Quote:
callousness is a shortcoming, an objective ethical failure as a human being
Again, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not praising the pharmacist for refusing to sell the medicine for a lower price. I'm only saying that he has the right to do so and no obligation (legal or moral) to do otherwise. The pharmacist probably could've acted differently in a way that would have been better - something like, "I'll sell it for the lower price, but you're going to have to pay me back." Just because he doesn't have to help doesn't mean he shouldn't - but when I say "he should help" I mean something quite different from what you mean. You think something like, "This person is sick, I have to help them, even if I don't really want to", while I think, "This person is sick, and because I'm a nice, virtuous person, I will help them even though I don't have to."
Quote:
What about that woman's right to live?
The right to live only means the right to not be killed. It doesn't mean anyone has the right to force others to keep them alive. To use another classic moral dilemma... but more on that at the bottom of the post.
JJ:
I don't know about the other people ITT, but I'm a moral objectivist.
There's a reason laws exist. If people are allowed to flout them whenever they feel they "need" to, the law is undermined.
del_diablo:
Freedom means the ability to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others. Objectively speaking, you cannot be said to be harming others if their situation would be no different if you and everything you own did not exist. A person's desires do not give them the right to enslave others. The car accident victim does not gain rights against innocent passerby simply because he is a victim.
Dilemma #14 (edited for clarification)
You get into a car accident and wake up in the hospital. The doctors say you're fine, but in the meantime they've attached a well-regarded mathematician/inventor/violinist/whatever to you. This person has an extremely rare condition that requires them to be physically attached to you (it has to be you, not some other person or a machine) via special feeding tube - if you remove it, they'll die. The doctors assure you that aside from the inconvenience of this person having to follow you around everywhere, your life will be unaffected.
Do you have the right to remove this person?
(Note: there is a real-life condition which is somewhat similar to this and is actually quite common, but saying what it is would immediately summon Elodin. )
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2011 10:07 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 10:15, 10 Nov 2011.
|
Quote:
Objectively speaking, you cannot be said to be harming others if their situation would be no different if you and everything you own did not exist.
but that makes a difference, on the psychological level, between "there is no solution" and "there is one but no way to reach it"
Quote:
Do you have the right to remove this person?
they didn't have any right to impose that to me without even asking. (is that a realistic situation btw? from a medical point of view, does it even make sense??)
well, of course you just can't kill the other person, but unless maybe that person is a crazy beautiful girl, they should probably find a better solution.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2011 10:16 AM |
|
|
Mvass, this isn't about RIGHTS and LAWS. Objectively spoken, they are ever changing and different from country to country, and if you break a law or undermine the rights of others, you'll be punished.
However, the law cannot cover every special situation, and sometimes people may feel the need to break it FOR A VERY GOOD (and not base) REASON.
The question is now, whether we can generally say that it is WRONG to do so, no matter what? Wouldn't that make us to robots? Who would ever see the necessity to CHANGE any laws then? Wouldn't that result in stagnation?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 10, 2011 10:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
del_diablo:
Freedom means the ability to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others. Objectively speaking, you cannot be said to be harming others if their situation would be no different if you and everything you own did not exist. A persons desires do not give them the right to enslave others. The car accident victim does not gain rights against innocent passerby simply because he is a victim.
Sadly the argument is again "freedom to harm is absolute".
I have a right for somebody to rescue me, if its viable to do so. A car accident is a really good example: Its a public area, with people passing at high velocity. If nobody stops, nobody will, and that person will be dead, perhaps a extremely painful death too.
The person HAS a right to temporally enslave others, because their freedom STOPS where it harms others.
Again: If nobody does it, nobody does it, hence you must force somebody to start it.
A example is how our society has gotten less "purist", it started with the court forcing the mob to not be able to enforce their moral.
Quote:
Dilemma #14
Yes, you have the right to deny him access, however you don't have to right to remove him before he can be stabilized.
The doctors and their apparatus must find somebody who is actually willing.
However, you never approved in the first place, meaning that the other person don't really have any rights compared to you.
The moral thing is to put him back on some machine, the personal thing is that you can still be persuaded.
____________
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted November 10, 2011 10:22 AM |
|
|
I feel Mvass' latest case is an analogy to something rather than an actual case but whatever...
Yes you have right to deny him access because the operation was done without your consent or knowledge.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
