moral dilemma

read the below and answer as soon as you've finished reading


Scenario 1

A woman was near death from a unique kind of cancer. There is a drug that might save her. The drug costs $4,000 per dosage. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000. He asked the doctor scientist who discovered the drug for a discount or let him pay later. But the doctor scientist refused.

Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?


please don't google and just answer it, there is no wrong or right answer.

no cause shouldn't steal n should give back the money people gave him??? im confused, cant be as simple as that !

oh but then she will die. I DONT KNOW. ^ that was my first answer tho

Depends which perspective you look at it from really
To be honest, I don't think there's an answer either way. I'd ask the wife and see if she wants to have a shot at living or if she just wants to die peacefully and then go with whatever she says.

depends on the woman's situation and how long she has left but i think he should break in or at least steal some money from someone

Ignoring the circumstances (Like the wife is 90+ and won't live for much longer anyway/that the wife can cope with her husband being in jail for X years/how well the drug works) - yes.

I can't answer these questions properly because I have too logical a mind so can't simply answer something without knowing the answer to all my questions haha.

Like how much of this medicine actually exists? I imagine if it's such a rare form of cancer, and the product is so expensive, there isn't that much. So what if he steals what is actually destined for someone who has paid, but is yet to receive the treatment? Not only would he be stealing, but could be causing the end of someone elses life.

Also how much does the medicine actually take to make? Maybe the scientist is actually not making a profit. He can't just afford to give it away, as that means he wouldn't have enough money to possibly develop a further cure which would be much cheaper and so could save many more lives.

Essentially I think it comes down to a battle between selfishness and seeing the wider impact of his actions. Of course it's horrible that his wife is going to die, and that he can't afford the cure, but to rob others of the people they love equally is not ok.



ok now gonna read the thread to see what others have said.

depends.
morally, no.

He should break in because at least it gives the woman the chance to live. He need not be guilty for stealing it as life is more important than money and I imagine the scientist is well off and would be able to replicate the drug if it is at that price. Then when he's eventually convicted, he will probably receive some sypmathy and time to repay damages and what not.

Unique as in nobody else has it?? If so, then he should take it. I mean, nobody else is gonna need it if she's the only person with it ;P

If not, then no. Somebody else could be more desperate for it, eg their child has the cancer therefore they need it more, surely??

I feel so harsh haha;3

really interesting to see what you guys say as everyone else i've spoken to has had an entirely different approach

no, it's stealing and it might not even cure her. not worth risking getting put in jail and leaving her on her own.

I would say so, he shouldn't, because stealing is just wrong. It's emotionally horrible to think that your wife is dying when there's a cure there you don't have access to because of financial means but you're hardly the only one in that situation, if not for that disease there's thousands of diseases that go untreated even though there is a cure because people simply can't afford it.

Especially seeing as it 'MIGHT' save her, there's no definite in that, and if the drug did work he'd probably end up in jail and not with his wife anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rozi

I can't answer these questions properly because I have too logical a mind so can't simply answer something without knowing the answer to all my questions haha.

Like how much of this medicine actually exists? I imagine if it's such a rare form of cancer, and the product is so expensive, there isn't that much. So what if he steals what is actually destined for someone who has paid, but is yet to receive the treatment? Not only would he be stealing, but could be causing the end of someone elses life.

Also how much does the medicine actually take to make? Maybe the scientist is actually not making a profit. He can't just afford to give it away, as that means he wouldn't have enough money to possibly develop a further cure which would be much cheaper and so could save many more lives.

Essentially I think it comes down to a battle between selfishness and seeing the wider impact of his actions. Of course it's horrible that his wife is going to die, and that he can't afford the cure, but to rob others of the people they love equally is not ok.

---

lmao I asked about how much of it there was too like if there is only one dose in existence and it can't be fully replicated without the substance actually being present then no he shouldn't because it is quite clearly depriving future sufferers (in the plural) of treatment, however if it can be done easily and cost-effectively then the moral obligation to preserve human life outweighs the moral obligation to not steal - especially if the pharmacist is asking extortionate prices as is the case in the more detailed versions that I've seen (which generally state that he makes it for X amount and wants to sell for 10X or so). But yeah totes agree that there's not nearly enough information given in this situation for people who want to actually analyse it rather than just go NO IT WRONG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

lmao I asked about how much of it there was too like if there is only one dose in existence and it can't be fully replicated without the substance actually being present then no he shouldn't because it is quite clearly depriving future sufferers (in the plural) of treatment, however if it can be done easily and cost-effectively then the moral obligation to preserve human life outweighs the moral obligation to not steal - especially if the pharmacist is asking extortionate prices as is the case in the more detailed versions that I've seen (which generally state that he makes it for X amount and wants to sell for 10X or so). But yeah totes agree that there's not nearly enough information given in this situation for people who want to actually analyse it rather than just go NO IT WRONG

---

they're looking for initial reasoning though! BUT YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT AS I'VE GIVEN YOU AN ENTIRE TWO DAYS TO THINK ABOUT IT

Yeah I haven't spent a single waking moment thinking of anything else :P anyway I gave that answer when it was put to me the first time

Depends, there are discussions where theft isn't considered morally wrong if the item is for its intended purposes and can be easily recreated. You could argue it is morally wrong for a company to withhold life saving drugs if the price is extortionate and is clearly profiteering from the suffering of others.

From the vague details, it is impossible to give an answer without knowing the details of the drug - is it incredibly rare and difficult to produce? Are there people suffering from a disease who cannot afford it but need it more than the man's wife? So many questions :P

When I read that I thought no he shouldn't, yes it would cure her but surely you'd want to spend his and her life together, he would most probably be arrested (although it was helping someone live) and then what? Also, it could cure her yes, but what's to say she wouldn't get hit by a bus or something like that the next day? It's a risk to take but he shouldn't break into the laboratory as that crime could out weigh everything that he was hoping to achieve by borrowing the money. He's tried various means to get the money but how long has she got before she needs the drug? Urgent? If not couldn't he attempt fundraisers, something to get the part he needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samanfa

Also, it could cure her yes, but what's to say she wouldn't get hit by a bus or something like that the next day?

---

Wot.

Anyone could get hit by a bus the next day!!! Should people not be treated if they're dying because "lol owell they might die tomorrow anyway if they fell out that window over there"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empired

Wot.

Anyone could get hit by a bus the next day!!! Should people not be treated if they're dying because "lol owell they might die tomorrow anyway if they fell out that window over there"

---

I'm not saying that but it's a possibility, he steals it, she gets cured, he gets arrested or has one day with her, she gets hit by a bus, it could be him, anyone that's true but it could happen, but I'm not saying just because she's dying she shouldn't be treated lmao.

Err i'd try to borrow from a loan shark. If i still don't have enough money then yes i'd probably steal it. If someone has bought it and waiting to use it surely the doctor would tell us that someone's bought it? Butttt if there's only a drug, the doctor wouldn't even sell it? What about the other sufferers? Only one could be cured? He could ask scientists to duplicate the drug before start using it to cure more people?

it's either 1.) steal and go to jail, your loved one's life is saved or 2.) your wife will die and you'll die alone feeling guilty

I just think when it comes to desperate situations like this, especially your loved ones, you'd do anything to save their life. Even if you were to go to jail you wouldn't be jailed for life, maybe up to 5 years? It's a hard decision to make.

Heinz can start using those tomatoes in his greenhouse to make a business called Heinz selling tomato ketchup across the world!

I'd say steal it but I'd probably go to the local media first and see if they can help with raising the money more effectively. Get a good sob story in the local paper and you're bound to raise the extra 2000 easily.

Oh omg!! We could choose secret sneaky option three where he befriends a super rich person and then he can steal his money!! Probably a safer option than trying to break into a warehouse holding a very rare and expensive kind of drug so..

Yeah and like what country is he in where they have the most radical cure for cancer but you can't even get a 4k loan

Show Hide

Stage one (punishment-obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will consequently be put in prison.
Age: Younger than 6

Stage two (personal reward; self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
Age: Younger than 6

Stage three (good boy-nice girl; conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it.
Age: 7-11

Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing.
Age: 7-11

Stage five (social contract; human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to live, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.
Age: 11+

Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because that violates the golden rule of honesty and respect.
Age: 11+

Stage seven (transcendental morality): Heinz should choose to spend more time with his wife in their remaining days, both acknowledging the cycle of life-and-death which is a part of the human condition.
Age: 11+

Honestly I'd say it depends on the circumstances, if it's unique so only she would be in need of the cure then yes I'd steal it as life > money.

If other people suffered from something similar and the cure would help them then would depend on more circumstances (ages, e.g. if your wifes 95 and a 30 year old will die without it, then I wouldn't steal it if the other person would be able to obtain it otherwise (but say she accepted she was going to die, couldn't afford it etc and spent remainder of time with her loved ones, then i'd steal it for wife))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

Show Hide

Stage one (punishment-obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will consequently be put in prison.
Age: Younger than 6

Stage two (personal reward; self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
Age: Younger than 6

Stage three (good boy-nice girl; conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it.
Age: 7-11

Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing.
Age: 7-11

Stage five (social contract; human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to live, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.
Age: 11+

Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because that violates the golden rule of honesty and respect.
Age: 11+

Stage seven (transcendental morality): Heinz should choose to spend more time with his wife in their remaining days, both acknowledging the cycle of life-and-death which is a part of the human condition.
Age: 11+

Honestly I'd say it depends on the circumstances, if it's unique so only she would be in need of the cure then yes I'd steal it as life > money.

If other people suffered from something similar and the cure would help them then would depend on more circumstances (ages, e.g. if your wifes 95 and a 30 year old will die without it, then I wouldn't steal it if the other person would be able to obtain it otherwise (but say she accepted she was going to die, couldn't afford it etc and spent remainder of time with her loved ones, then i'd steal it for wife))

---

pmsl some peoples answers mean they have the moral development or whatever of 1-11 year olds lol

No, you have no right to other people's property or wealth.

Scott what you posted is inaccurate, there are no ages set to moral development.
a 7 year old or a 70 year old could give you an answer that belongs to level 1 and it doesn't make a difference to his intelligence

I feel that I've missed the point of this thread, I thought we were supposed to answer instantly and not give too much thought about it, so my answer of 'Yes (if you ignore all the circumstances)' seems really bad now. Everyone else is giving detailed responses... I think most people would initally think yes until they had time to think of the consequences...

Life happens, death happens. When it comes it comes and it comes to us all. And no life isn't fair.

If you can afford it, then that's your life, if you can't afford it so be it. That is your life and your load.

The law shouldn't be broken. That cure shouldn't be stolen. What if it was for someone who had paid, and it had been stolen? Is that fair?

In short, my answer - No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

I feel that I've missed the point of this thread, I thought we were supposed to answer instantly and not give too much thought about it, so my answer of 'Yes (if you ignore all the circumstances)' seems really bad now. Everyone else is giving detailed responses... I think most people would initally think yes until they had time to think of the consequences...

---

yeah i was thinking everyone was over thinking the situation/question way too much lol

I think Heinz should break into the lab and steal it, then go on the run with his wife.

They'll never ketchup to them.

wtf he owns a ******* ketchup company the stingy *******

i just re read the dilemma i posted and i'm hitting myself, it's meant to say that the medicine only costs 500 dollars to make but he's charging 4000!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wixard

i just re read the dilemma i posted and i'm hitting myself, it's meant to say that the medicine only costs 500 dollars to make but he's charging 4000!

---

WELL THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING TARA OH YOU PILLOCK

He should definitely take it and give the scientist the money when he has it (although he may be in jail by then :P)