What do you think Heinz should do?

[TheCommie12]

A morality & Ethics test created by Lawrence Kohlberg

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 store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

what do you think that Heinz should do in this situation? Before you answer, put this is in a first person perspective, imagine you are Heinz, then answer.

 

[Queen Michael]

Of course he should have. He should have paid the money he had, though.

 

[JUGGERNAUTBITCH]

wud've done the same as heinz. but after my wife recovers/dies go to court/prison w/e.

 

[awesomeClaw]

Of course he was in the right. Hell, if it was up to me, the man refusing to sell him should be charged with involuntary manslaugther.

 

[McPulse]

Well, I think all healthcare should be paid for or at least substantially subsidised by the state, so I figure he's in the right.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Of course he should have. He should have paid the money he had, though.

Break in, leave $1000 and a note explaining that he'll pay off the rest in time? Sounds like a decent way to go about things.

Of course if Heinz didn't stop making blue, pink, green and, purple ketchup he may have had enough for the drug anyway.

 

[Dys]

There is no right way to behave in that situation. Real life doesn't fit the digital ideals of right and wrong. Personally, I would have broken in and stolen it as well, but there can be no doubt that stealing is wrong (even when stealing from an asshole).

 

[are.you.the.god.its.me.vader]

Dammit...all I can think of is baked beans and ketchup.

OT: Yes! Although I would leave what money I had in my wallet nearby.

 

[tigermilk]

Heinz meanz beanz.

Oh I see. Steal the drugs, I despise the excessive profits made from drug companies and the woman is dying.

 

[Agayek]

A morality & Ethics test created by Lawrence Kohlberg

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 store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

what do you think that Heinz should do in this situation? Before you answer, put this is in a first person perspective, imagine you are Heinz, then answer.

From an ethical standpoint, both Heinz and the pharmacist are wrong. The pharmacist should have accepted a down payment and loan schedule, flat out denying the treatment because they can't afford it upfront is rather horrendously bad.

Heinz is still wrong for having stolen the drug though. Theft is immoral, period. That does not change when the circumstances change. That does not mean the theft is not understandable however, I would almost certainly do the same thing. An understandable or "just" motive does not mitigate the fact that he stole.

 

[Count Igor]

I'd say it's morally right, if he leaves the 1,000 dollars behind.
But that's my view. Legally wrong, of course.

 

[Baradiel]

ofcourse! I've always considered ridiculously high prices on medicines to be a sort of blackmail. As in, "Pay us x amount of money or you will die."

I know that companies have to make money, and that is the glory of capitalism, but I don't think its right.

 

[Summerstorm]

Ah, i heard this dilemma can be used to gauge typical woman/man responses.

You say it like that. Woman sick, blablabla. YOU don't have enough money to pay for it, You asked him to give it to you, he said no. What do you do?

Most woman tend to ask around to get more mones (even if you told them they can't have any more) or try to plead the guy to have it cheaper, to promise something in the future etc. (So avoiding direct action, locking themselves in perceived options)

Most men tend to say: I am going TO TAKE the damn stuff. (Stealing or violence)

So yeah, i would steal the shit and HAPPILY without any shred of guilt. Hell, i would steal it without any shred of guild if the selling dude wasn't a greedy asshole and i am just TOO poor. I would feel bad if i stole the stuff from another guy who needed it to live though. VERY bad, to the point i wouldn't do it sometimes (steel from a sick child with a bright future and such)

 

[madster11]

Does Heinz know it costs the man $200 to produce?

Because if so, i'm surprised he didn't take all the mans samples, set fire to the mans store, and then sell all but 1 of the doses to a trusted company to produce in larger numbers for, say, $150 each and sell it for $300-500 each. Like i would have.
That's a much more reasonable profit (still massive) instead of a retarded profit, and it's likely the better company wouldn't basically say 'no, your loved one can die painfully' instead of, say, making the man sign something to say that he will pay the rest to the company when he has it.

On the other hand, why couldn't Heinz get a loan from the bank?

 

[Dr_Pie]

I wouldn't see myself stealing the drug if I were Heinz.

To be honest, I'd probably go straight to threatening the druggist =/

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

Ah morality and ethics but little known fun fact about this situation, its not about what the participant thinks Heinz should do. It is all about the justification that is significant.


Further reading, think long and hard what you believe is the justification to steal or not to steal it. It'll tell you something you might not have known before.


In my view there is no right decision and I personally have no justification for stealing it as well for not stealing it. I can see the reasons for both sides of the argument.

 

[pliusmannn]

Heinz should really come back into making ketchup again, his ketchup and sauces was super tasty but expensive, my question how Heinz could have wasted all the money he gets from sauces and ketchup? and on the other hand druggist is right in this situation, he can charge whatever he wants even hundred times more if he wants to, if it was anti-cancer drug people would pay million times more to save pne pathetic life. Also if Heinz wouldn't have wasted all the ketchup profit he would have payd million times more, damn that ketchup is tasty

 

[Nickolai77]

From a utilitarian perspective, the sadness caused by the death of Heinz' wife would be considerably greater than the sadness caused by Heinz breaking into the Druggist's store, so from a Utilitarian perspective Heinz would do the right thing if he broke into the store and stole the drug.

From a Kantian perspective, you essentially have a clash of two duties- the duty to save someones life versus the duty not to steal. I takes little thought to deduce that the former overrides the latter.

So both these perspectives could legitimise stealing from the store.

My real solution however would be to nationalise healthcare...