A question of morals. - DPChallenge Forums

12/02/2005 08:49:24 PM · #26

"Do you condone the man's actions?"

Maybe bad wording, maybe my exacting nature...

My condoning or not condoning the action is irrelevent in the grand scheme of things, yes? It is against societal law to steal. I didn't make the law, but I live in a society that believes and enforces the law.
As to morals, does anyone 'condone' the actions of the druggist? Seems like we do everyday...

I may agree with his somewhat flawed logic, I may sympathize with his plight, but condone implies that I allow his actions. Good for the goose, good for the gander and when do you draw the line?

At any rate, I am not a fan of utilitarianism in its commonly practiced form. And stealing the medicine for his wife is not a utilitarian act...Now, do drug companies act in a utilitarian manner, unless what is good for the stock holders is good for all?

Interesting philosophical questions debated since, well, since there were philosophers.

12/02/2005 08:51:25 PM · #27

Originally posted by mavrik:

Utilitarianism has so many holes that it's virtually useless as an ethical system. If you lived in a small village with maybe 80 people - and the volcano god needed a sacrifice or he'd lava the village and the villagers offered you up and you went YOU WOULD BE AN IDIOT. You "saved" the rest of them, but YOU ARE DEAD. Not a very nice way to spend your karmic rewards.

And yet self-sacrifice is an act highly honored by nearly every world religion. It seems universally accepted as a moral "good".

You are welcome to offer up another moral framework and we can discuss the same problem.

12/02/2005 08:53:23 PM · #28

Originally posted by dahkota:

And stealing the medicine for his wife is not a utilitarian act...

I don't think any act is "utilitarian". Utilitarianism is a method for judging an action, not an inherent quality of an action itself.

12/02/2005 08:54:00 PM · #29

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Irrelevent because it was not in the original dilemma. What if the druggist was secretly a pedophile and planned on spending the money he made from his drug on a secret dungeon where he would repeatedly rape little girls?

and if the was woman a murderer?
(and if she lives, so will be her husabnd)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

As yourself this: Is the wife's life worth more than $1800? Most people would obviously answer yes.

I belive that oversimplfies the problem quite a bit, but I take it you believe any monetary value is yeild less value than human life.

So if it was you selling this drug, for say $20million (it actually cost $2 million to make), and it was stolen, you are now out $2 million, you cant feed your kids, cant keep your house. Your life, your families life, may now be ruined.

@DrAchoo, sorry, I just realized both points i took were from you, everyone is entitled to their opinin, and I am especially interested in yours, please do not take this the wrong way, and thank you for participating in this debate.

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 20:57:50.

12/02/2005 08:54:59 PM · #30

Originally posted by dahkota:

And stealing the medicine for his wife is not a utilitarian act...

I'm interested in this - what philosophy DOES support this action?

Not utilitarianism.
Not egoism.
Not Objectivism.
Kant's moral law maybe - but not the categorical imperative.
Socialism would have the government take the drug and distribute according to need, so yes, socialism.
-----------
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. What should you do?

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/02/2005 08:57:08 PM · #31

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And yet self-sacrifice is an act highly honored by nearly every world religion.

Ah yes! And thus my first issue with "nearly every world religion." If I want to self-sacrifice - FINE.
If you make me - screw you. Man cannot be rational at the point of a gun.

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 20:57:24.

wavelength

Nikon D300

12/02/2005 08:59:58 PM · #32

Originally posted by mavrik:

Ah yes! And thus my first issue with "nearly every world religion." If I want to self-sacrifice - FINE.
If you make me - screw you. Man cannot be rational at the point of a gun.

sure you can mav, would you rather die, or do what the guy tells you? seems pretty rational to me. :o)

12/02/2005 09:00:32 PM · #33

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Irrelevent because it was not in the original dilemma.

That's the problem with these hypotheticals. We can't live by emergency ethics and decide things in real life based on "say you were on a lifeboat with two other guys and ..." We don't live on lifeboats or deserted islands or towns where $1800 wouldn't buy a lot of groceries and pay bills for the druggist. Deciding morality on emergency ethics never works.

12/02/2005 09:02:24 PM · #34

Originally posted by wavelength:

sure you can mav, would you rather die, or do what the guy tells you? seems pretty rational to me. :o)

See my other post - about the concentration camp. That's not morality, ethics or rationality. It's survival. We don't face those choices when we decide to steal a song off the Internet.

12/02/2005 09:03:36 PM · #35

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Irrelevent because it was not in the original dilemma.

That's the problem with these hypotheticals. We can't live by emergency ethics and decide things in real life based on "say you were on a lifeboat with two other guys and ..." We don't live on lifeboats or deserted islands or towns where $1800 wouldn't buy a lot of groceries and pay bills for the druggist. Deciding morality on emergency ethics never works.

The question is not "what would you do?"

The question is if you find this man's actions permissable by your moral standards. Could you forgive this man? Or is he completely in the wrong?

12/02/2005 09:07:17 PM · #36

Originally posted by mavrik:

I agree with you here mavrik. This is more an exercise in debate rather than solving any moral issues at hand.

That being said, I would challenge your notion that Utilitarianism does not support stealing the medicine. I believe it does.

@Maxj. Actually I do not believe a human life is worth more than any amount of money. I think there is actually a value which would be worth more. What is that value? I don't know. But it's larger than a few thousand dollars. A practical example of this is that I am generally for the rationing of health care. A concept which is far from accepted in the US...

BTW, don't worry at all about hurting my feelings. This may relegate me eternally to geekhood, but I won trophies for debate in my high school years. I understand the difference between a personal attack and a spirited debate.

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 21:11:06.

12/02/2005 09:07:21 PM · #37

Originally posted by maxj:

The question is not "what would you do?" The question is if you find this man's actions permissable by your moral standards. Could you forgive this man? Or is he completely in the wrong?

I don't see where my post that you quoted has only to do with what I'd do - I think it is the standard I am applying to the guy. I am explaining that while an interesting question, without allowing for a little reality, it's not a way to decide things. I've also said he's in the wrong. Completely.

12/02/2005 09:09:10 PM · #38

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That being said, I would challenge your notion that Utilitarianism does not support stealing the medicine. I believe it does.

How so? We have to weigh both sides right? You're going to put this woman's life on one side and say nothing outweighs her life, right? I've done this debate, I'm sure you have too. The answer to that of course is why would I, as the druggist, ever invent another new medicine? You saved one life, but the potential to let a lot more people die weighs in too. It's not just the money. It's the motivation factors.

12/02/2005 09:10:33 PM · #39

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

BTW, don't worry at all about hurting my feelings. This may relegate me eternally to geekhood, but I won trophiese for debate in my high school years. I understand the difference between a personal attack and a spirited debate.

Ditto here - we can argue til we're blue in the face and probly never convince each other though. Many people don't think thru their beliefs - I have and can explain how I feel ad nauseum.

12/02/2005 09:11:19 PM · #40

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by wavelength:
sure you can mav, would you rather die, or do what the guy tells you? seems pretty rational to me. :o)

See my other post - about the concentration camp. That's not morality, ethics or rationality. It's survival. We don't face those choices when we decide to steal a song off the Internet.

You are right, this is a matter of survival. But ethics and morals begin to grow after you are done "surviving." How will this man live after he has stolen the drugs? Will he later learn he has inadvertadly killed his grandaughter? Will he take his own life in despair and therefore leave his wife with nothing?

I know my line of questions are a bit outlandish, but the vagueness of this question allots for much interpretations.

But I think you had it right with your first post.Stealing cannot be permissiable not for the initial act, but for what may follow afterwards.

12/02/2005 09:14:07 PM · #41

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, don't worry at all about hurting my feelings. This may relegate me eternally to geekhood, but I won trophiese for debate in my high school years. I understand the difference between a personal attack and a spirited debate.

Ditto here - we can argue til we're blue in the face and probly never convince each other though. Many people don't think thru their beliefs - I have and can explain how I feel ad nauseum.

Yes...and by the end of class, there was much blue in the face, we started 3 saying he was wrong against 27 who belive that stealing was right. We ended with those same numbers.

12/02/2005 09:15:26 PM · #42

To mavrik and Dr. Achoo:
I didn't say it was a utilitarian act. Dr. Achoo did:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Utilitarianism, the greatest good, is a popular one. The good done by saving the wife's life outweights the evil done by stealing $1800.

I also never said anything aobut any philosophy supporting or not supporting the action. I specifically said that this case was not an act of utilitarianism. That's it.

And, with regard to the concentration camp, my response would be to do nothing. the gaurd is responsible for his actions, and I mine. By doing nothing I am responsible for no deaths; by moving the chair I am responsible for 1. As I stated earlier, I am not a fan of utilitarianism as its currently applied.

:) sorry for typos

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/02/2005 09:19:30 PM · #43

Originally posted by dahkota:

To mavrik and Dr. Achoo:

I'm not confused about your stance - I'm asking what philosophy DOES cover the answer that he's ok for stealing.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

12/02/2005 09:20:17 PM · #44

The problem as initially stated is flawed. The mere mention of the inititial cost of the drug has no play nor does the consumer mark-up. Why would the cost to produce the drug be mention if not to illustrate that a socialist phylosophy would solve this type of injustice.

Stealing is wrong but consider if you are one bite away from life and the grocer has many apples would you beg and when refused would you simply drop dead a righteous creature. If you had to feed an infant and he needed milk but too late to get social aid...What would you do.

I would rather consider stealing for life saving purposes different than stealing simply for personal gain. So, in any of the above, if you are willing to pay the price and suffer the disgrace, then that is your decision and nobody can tell you different.

Make like you are a judge hearing the case... It is okay to live a life and experience personal growth both in culture, morals and money...Do you now look down on those that are not as smart as you are or because of life bumps finds one person down and out? Do not confuse this with those that are lazy and irresponsible.

Now, the other part of the problem with the given example is that there was no mention if all avenues to raise the money for the drug were exhausted. Certainly, if he had friends he borrowed from there must be other resources.

To conclude, I find the intitial question loaded and one put forward to make a comparison between a capitalist and socialist societies. There is no relief because if it should have been a socialist state, then there would not be the resources for the state to advance the discovery and manufature of drugs to the paramount manner in which America does.

To steal is wrong but where life hangs on the line is one that requires very special consideration. Yes, if your life is very well organized than I can see the unmoving viewpoint, but while the rule of law dominates in 99% the spirit of it is not to see man die for lack of a bite. Here is where that exception or that one percent comes in.

In this case, as presented, I take no stance because the question is fully loaded.

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 21:21:04.

12/02/2005 09:21:50 PM · #45

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That being said, I would challenge your notion that Utilitarianism does not support stealing the medicine. I believe it does.

How so? We have to weigh both sides right? You're going to put this woman's life on one side and say nothing outweighs her life, right? I've done this debate, I'm sure you have too. The answer to that of course is why would I, as the druggist, ever invent another new medicine? You saved one life, but the potential to let a lot more people die weighs in too. It's not just the money. It's the motivation factors.

I'm being very situational here. I'm talking about this specific situation and don't know if such a precendent would even apply to larger contexts.

As I mentioned to maxj, I do not feel that "a life" is a weight on the scale which has no equal. This is not true. Money has value and can do good. A billion dollars can possibly do more good vaccinating hundreds of thousands of children. But in this scenario it seems like such a paltry sum. $2000. In this country that is only a few month's wages even at minimum wage. The druggist is actually only out $200 (his cost to manufacture) because he can make more doses and was not going to "make a sale" in this case anyway (the husband could not afford it).

I go back to Taiwan and the bird flu. They are doing exactly what the husband did. African nations have also started manufacturing HIV medicine without license as well. By no means do I think this is an "obvious answer". It is complex. VERY complex. But I generally support such actions as a greater good.

12/02/2005 09:26:28 PM · #46

I think you were ont he right track with Kant. The moral imperative would be to save his wife's life at the cost of the consequences for him.

Honestly, I specialized in Symbolic Logic and Midieval Studies. I hated Ethics. Really hated ethics. There seemed no point... :)

12/02/2005 09:27:56 PM · #47

Very astute observations 'funk. It seems you may be onto something.

I am interested that here the sentiment seemed to run opposite your class. I have started to feel the thinking on this site is very concrete and much voting can be explained with this in mind. For more...see my rant as soon as Adulthood is over. ;)

12/02/2005 09:31:09 PM · #48

well said graphicfunk, however, I am dissapointed you have failed to take a stance.

The money does serve a purpose. It shows that this drug costs $200 in resources alone. And possibly more in research and labor.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

one bite away from life and the grocer has many apples

This point although valid, does not play a role in this debate for my reaosning above. This could very well the most rare drug ever created.

Now, if you were in the grocery store, starving on the floor, and happened upon an apple, would you give it to the starving farmer, or take it for yourself?

I imagine the vaguness of this question is what bothers you about it, the question, lacks any real facts. The real question here is what facts, with what quantity of data, would you be ready to condone stealing to save the life of a loved one? Would you ever be able to?

Message edited by author 2005-12-02 21:32:30.

12/02/2005 09:31:49 PM · #49

Dammit I just lost my answer cuz I went backwards!

The short version is that African nations are manufacturing the drug - they stole the patented formula, but they are creating it. They aren't stealing EVERYTHING.

I think that if the husband downloaded the formula off the Internet, whipped up a batch, saved his wife's life and then paid the patent violation fees, that would be MUCH more permissible than stealing the serum on the pharmacist's desk.

One is a criminal matter, one is a civil penalty. While I'd prefer he find a way to pay, obviously the patent violation is less of a moral breakdown to me than the theft and disregard for property law.