A moral dilemma (2 Viewers)

[thongetsu]

i hope someone steals his product and sells it at a cheaper price, that'll teach the bastard to be greedy

 

[scuba_steve2121]

hes not greedy hes stupid XD

 

[Ritard_]

yes ausbluesman but obviously when differing views come up there will be discussion about them

yeh i know graney i was being very simplistic

ak-47s are a perfect example of that btw

 

[mirakon]

The reason we have money, a currency and trade is to advance humanity anyway. It's a sign of us being evolved, moral creatures beyond that of animals, we have a hint of altruism within us. Therefore it's the professors fault for being so insensitive and he got what he deserved. Do unto others as you want them to do unto you. The professor was robbing the man of his wife, all the man took was a drug. Think about that.

 

[Ritard_]

without the professors knowledge and work (which is worth $$$) there would be no dr4g
so really
he wasnt robbing the man of his wife at all
he provided a way to save her
unfortunately it was too expensive and he was not compassionate enough to lower his price or comprimise

 

[thongetsu]

yay go mirakon!

 

[mirakon]

That's the point. The professor didn't provide a way to save the wife, he provided a way to make his own money. If he truly cared about the wife, he would have actually shown some compassion.

 

[thongetsu]

he wasnt compassionate enough thus deserving what he got

 

[scarybunny]

Fair enough, shit costs money and you've gotta make a living.

But maybe offer patients a payment plan, especially since the man did offer to pay half now and make up the rest later.

I would steal it, because I believe life should be protected over personal property.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

Fair enough, shit costs money and you've gotta make a living.

But maybe offer patients a payment plan, especially since the man did offer to pay half now and make up the rest later.

I would steal it, because I believe life should be protected over personal property.

Life is worth more than money is the basic root of the argument.

 

[funkshen]

hes not greedy hes stupid XD

The premise of your argument is contingent on the supply conditions of radium. If the supply was constrained then no, he isn't an idiot. It would not be rational for the druggist to sell the drug to Heinz if Heinz could not pay the price which optimised the druggist's profit subject to supply constraint.

Although if there were no supply constraints then there would be perfect price discrimination, and people who can't afford the $200 for the radium can fuck off.

Either way leaves no room for compassion.

 

[Slidey]

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?

Yes. Life is more important than profit and funkshen actually does nothing to convince us otherwise, as he presupposes that we agree that we should let the free market decide... which is really quite circular (and in this case sociopathic) logic.

 

[chantal_3]

i say he steals the drug AND leaves the money he does have to the druggist....
that way the man has the chance to save his wife and the druggiest gets sufficent doe to compensate for the stolen drug...

BOTH parties happy

 

[funkshen]

Yes. Life is more important than profit and funkshen actually does nothing to convince us otherwise, as he presupposes that we agree that we should let the free market decide... which is really quite circular (and in this case sociopathic) logic.

That was my point.

That and the fact that the free market and profit maximising may NOT be the solution to this situation (more like are not).

edit: I thought my point was obvious, woops

 

[Slidey]

That was my point.

Oh, sorry! I misread - you were quoting scuba steve.

 

[Slidey]

i say he steals the drug AND leaves the money he does have to the druggist....
that way the man has the chance to save his wife and the druggiest gets sufficent doe to compensate for the stolen drug...

BOTH parties happy

Hello Mr Utilitarian.

I agree with you, BTW.

 

[funkshen]

Hello Mr Utilitarian.

I agree with you, BTW.

Technically the monopolist druggist wouldn't be happy (satisfied) because his utility isn't maximised... I think it'd be more appropriate to say the druggist's dissatisfaction would be mitigated.

Edit: so it's a matter of reaching a socially acceptable compromise between the satisfaction of Heinz and the dissatisfaction of the druggist. Coase theorem would work it out.

 

[Fish Tank]

Life transcends monetary worth. One cannot place a price tag on a person's life, there is no other identical to it.

In saying that I would not steal the radium, the professor will be punished in the long run, the tide will turn against him. Sadly human life is frail, and I would do anything in my power to obtain that drug but I personally wouldn't resort to theft to do it.

I have nothing against a person if they are that willing to save a person's life, it shows a very high degree of loyalty which I respect. I would hope that karma will get the professor, if it costs him $200 to produce the drug then $2000 is a little much. His inflexibility is unwise, he'd get a 50% down payment from the guy and could charge interest, poor business.

 

[chantal_3]

Technically the monopolist druggist wouldn't be happy (satisfied) because his utility isn't maximised... I think it'd be more appropriate to say the druggist's dissatisfaction would be mitigated.

Edit: so it's a matter of reaching a socially acceptable compromise between the satisfaction of Heinz and the dissatisfaction of the druggist. Coase theorem would work it out.

the drug was stolen by Hienz. when someone steals from you, you dont expect them to leave money sufficeint to fund for 4 more replacements of the particular item stolen
( based on the fact the drug 200 dollars to make, thus with the 1000 heinz leaves the druggist, he can make 4 drugs )

wouldn't the druggist be happy?

 

[PH011]

What if the man robbed a rich guy's home and stole $2000 and used it to buy the drug? Wouldn't that change the situation completely?