A moral dilemma (3 Viewers)

[Graney]

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 laboratory to steal the drug for his wife?

Why or why not?

There is no right or wrong answer, the justification you use to come to your conclusion is what is of interest.

 

[thongetsu]

Yes. he loved his wife and she was dying. wouldnt you do anything for a dying loved one?

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

Love outrules capitalism all the time.

 

[Ritard_]

graney i am sick of your shit

 

[Ritard_]

but it is a persons intellectual and physical property
your love for someone else should not harm another persons property

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

but it is a persons intellectual and physical property
your love for someone else should not harm another persons property

True. But that price is rediculous... The professor obviously has no care for human life and only money, so why care about the effect on him?

 

[thongetsu]

the guy who made it was a greedy and selfish asshole. he deserves to get his property stolen

 

[scarybunny]

Intuition pumps go!

Is someone doing first year philosophy?

 

[Ritard_]

um
so you are saying anyone who marks up a in demand product deserves to have it stolen

?

 

[scuba_steve2121]

shouldn't of, its his property he can sell it at any price he darn well likes. however if he was smart he would of sold it for less. so hes not greedy hes just stupid.

though it was wrong i would of stolen it but probably left some money behind

 

[thongetsu]

yes! that or have no customers!

 

[Ritard_]

anyone who makes profit off a product should have that product stolen

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

um
so you are saying anyone who marks up a in demand product deserves to have it stolen

?

No, only if the product was created to be used to cure disease etc. and the professor is a greedy, uncaring prick who could care less about how many people died before he got his $2,000.

Many of the masses would steal from him, purely because of his stupidity.

 

[thongetsu]

products of this genre should be used for good not for people's greed

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

products of this genre should be used for good not for people's greed

Exactly.

 

[Ritard_]

um

the product was created to be used to cure diseases in exchange for money

the druggist can sell it for whatever he wants.

if someone can produce it and sell it for less, then we have *competition* and he will either be forces to make his prices more competitive or not make any money

 

[Ritard_]

um u guys cant seriously believe that
yes
of course people should spend years at uni then years developing a product
to then *give* it to sick people

 

[thongetsu]

yeah but he should sold it at a reasonable price i.e. $1000.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

um u guys cant seriously believe that
yes
of course people should spend years at uni then years developing a product
to then *give* it to sick people

The basic idea of this thread as I understand it is whether or not you would steal the drug, not to argue against others point of view?

Tell me that if your loved one was on the verge of death and the professor was selling the one drug that would save them for a rediculous price, that you wouldn't steal it?

Edit: If he sold it for less, he'd most likely make more money because those who aren't that well off financially would have the chance to buy the drug. The amount of custormers would triple and he'd be making more money more regularly anyway.

 

[Graney]

um

the product was created to be used to cure diseases in exchange for money

the druggist can sell it for whatever he wants.

if someone can produce it and sell it for less, then we have *competition* and he will either be forces to make his prices more competitive or not make any money

Patents.

This actually happens in the real world. Major western pharmaceutical companies set high profit margins on life saving antiretrovirals, owning the patents they control the conditions under which competition can exist.

Third world countries that don't respect patents, steal these patents without licence and produce cheaper generics.