First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Heinz Dilemma
kvi 
51494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Planet Mars
Offline
Posted 3/11/13
That's an easy one. I choose to be that selfish because I perceive that the value that the pharmacist places on his medicine is neither equal nor greater than the value that I place on my wife. Again, we're basing this off whether my actions are only to steal or not to steal.

The pharmacist is choosing not to help my wife which is causing me harm. Which in a way justifies my action of stealing from him.

As to what makes me think I'm not a seriously warped individual. That's based on my scale of morality. I have a fairly good idea of how selfish I can become. I've got an idea of where I believe too much selfishness becomes evil and too little becomes self-destructive. I adhere to those limits and I'm able to live with my choices.

30425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Online
Posted 3/11/13

kvi wrote:

That's an easy one. I choose to be that selfish because I perceive that the value that the pharmacist places on his medicine is neither equal nor greater than the value that I place on my wife. Again, we're basing this off whether my actions are only to steal or not to steal.

The pharmacist is choosing not to help my wife which is causing me harm. Which in a way justifies my action of stealing from him.

As to what makes me think I'm not a seriously warped individual. That's based on my scale of morality. I have a fairly good idea of how selfish I can become. I've got an idea of where I believe too much selfishness becomes evil and too little becomes self-destructive. I adhere to those limits and I'm able to live with my choices.



How does it justify the harming of a person? How can you not think of yourself as evil when you are deliberately harming a human being?
kvi 
51494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Planet Mars
Offline
Posted 3/11/13 , edited 3/11/13
You're pushing toward a circular argument. I already said, by doing nothing I am causing harm to my wife. In that mindset I'm causing harm with either action. I'm not asking you to accept that yourself, but you have to understand that I believe that.
30425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Online
Posted 3/11/13

kvi wrote:

You're pushing toward a circular argument. I already said, by doing nothing I am causing harm to my wife. In that mindset I'm causing harm with either action. I'm not asking you to accept that yourself, but you have to understand that I believe that.


Why do you think that you have to do nothing? You should act in a manner that does not inflict harm to either party, which would be to properly compensate the pharmacist in exchange for the drug that will save the wife, anything else is immoral. Why should you make any choice that harms a human being?
kvi 
51494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Planet Mars
Offline
Posted 3/11/13
Immoral by your standards and maybe a lot of other people's but not my own. And that's assuming that each party can come to an acceptable compromise, which the original question does not clarify.
30425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Online
Posted 3/11/13 , edited 3/11/13

kvi wrote:

Immoral by your standards and maybe a lot of other people's but not my own. And that's assuming that each party can come to an acceptable compromise, which the original question does not clarify.


Then what standards could you possibly hold? An acceptable compromise can be reached in any situation with a adequate amount of time, so there is no reason to act unethically. You should not hold your wife's needs above anybody else's needs.
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/11/13

lordseth23 wrote:


kvi wrote:

Immoral by your standards and maybe a lot of other people's but not my own. And that's assuming that each party can come to an acceptable compromise, which the original question does not clarify.


Then what standards could you possibly hold? An acceptable compromise can be reached in any situation with a adequate amount of time, so there is no reason to act unethically. You should not hold your wife's needs above anybody else's needs.


Are you saying a human life isn't worth more than the price the pharmacist charged for the medicine?
30425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Online
Posted 3/11/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Are you saying a human life isn't worth more than the price the pharmacist charged for the medicine?


No, I never claimed that.
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/11/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

Are you saying a human life isn't worth more than the price the pharmacist charged for the medicine?


No, I never claimed that.


So then you acknowledge that the wife's life is more important than the money the pharmacist wanted to charge for it?
30425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Online
Posted 3/11/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


So then you acknowledge that the wife's life is more important than the money the pharmacist wanted to charge for it?


It depends on the financial situation of the pharmacist.
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/11/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


So then you acknowledge that the wife's life is more important than the money the pharmacist wanted to charge for it?


It depends on the financial situation of the pharmacist.


No. It doesn't. Because regardless of the pharmacist's financial situation, he will not die from this situation.
Not to mention that even if he was in dire need, he could make more, which even if he was in dire need of money, would even out if he could sell more of it, which he most likely could.
Not to mention that he could, and would be compensated for the loss afterwards. At the very least enough for him to make more, and thus potentially sell it for that outrageous price to someone else.

So unless the pharmacist is in immediate, desperate need for money in the sense that he would be killed if he couldn't get any, then no.
The wife on the other hand is certain to die, lest she gets the treatment.

And as we saw from the example, that is most likely not the case, seeing as he refused to sell it if the guy couldn't get the entire amount. If he was in such a dire need of money, he would take what he could get and then get the rest later. Not just outright refuse to sell it.
The fact that he did that indicates that he ISN'T in a dire financial situation.
30425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Online
Posted 3/11/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


No. It doesn't. Because regardless of the pharmacist's financial situation, he will not die from this situation.
Not to mention that even if he was in dire need, he could make more, which even if he was in dire need of money, would even out if he could sell more of it, which he most likely could.
Not to mention that he could, and would be compensated for the loss afterwards. At the very least enough for him to make more, and thus potentially sell it for that outrageous price to someone else.

So unless the pharmacist is in immediate, desperate need for money in the sense that he would be killed if he couldn't get any, then no.
The wife on the other hand is certain to die, lest she gets the treatment.

And as we saw from the example, that is most likely not the case, seeing as he refused to sell it if the guy couldn't get the entire amount. If he was in such a dire need of money, he would take what he could get and then get the rest later. Not just outright refuse to sell it.
The fact that he did that indicates that he ISN'T in a dire financial situation.


Now you are making unfounded assumptions. How do you know that the money the pharmacist wants in this situation will not save his life? Don't assume that he will not die as a result of this crime. He could need that exact amount of money at that moment to save his life, his wife's life, his child's life, a family member's life, or any other life that needs to be saved that very same day, in which there wasn't any more time left to gather additional funds and the very same medicine that was stolen is needed to save somebody else's life. Why would you steal that medicine when it could be used to save another person's life?
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/11/13 , edited 3/11/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


No. It doesn't. Because regardless of the pharmacist's financial situation, he will not die from this situation.
Not to mention that even if he was in dire need, he could make more, which even if he was in dire need of money, would even out if he could sell more of it, which he most likely could.
Not to mention that he could, and would be compensated for the loss afterwards. At the very least enough for him to make more, and thus potentially sell it for that outrageous price to someone else.

So unless the pharmacist is in immediate, desperate need for money in the sense that he would be killed if he couldn't get any, then no.
The wife on the other hand is certain to die, lest she gets the treatment.

And as we saw from the example, that is most likely not the case, seeing as he refused to sell it if the guy couldn't get the entire amount. If he was in such a dire need of money, he would take what he could get and then get the rest later. Not just outright refuse to sell it.
The fact that he did that indicates that he ISN'T in a dire financial situation.


Now you are making unfounded assumptions. How do you know that the money the pharmacist wants in this situation will not save his life? Don't assume that he will not die as a result of this crime. He could need that exact amount of money at that moment to save his life, his wife's life, his child's life, a family member's life, or any other life that needs to be saved that very same day, in which there wasn't any more time left to gather additional funds and the very same medicine that was stolen is needed to save somebody else's life. Why would you steal that medicine when it could be used to save another person's life?


Because if he really needed money that bad, he would take the money that the husband would be able to provide, and then make a deal to be compensated later, as he might then be able to strike a similar deal with whomever he had to pay money to. It would be better than not selling it at all.
NOT selling it at all in this scenario that you're proposing wouldn't make sense at all.

Besides, his wording doesn't exactly express such dire financial needs. He said quote: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it."
Not exactly something you'd imagine someone in dire need for cash say. More the kind of thing a scrupple-less greedy person would say.
30425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Online
Posted 3/11/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Because if he really needed money that bad, he would take the money that the husband would be able to provide, and then make a deal to be compensated later, as he might then be able to strike a similar deal with whomever he had to pay money to. It would be better than not selling it at all.
NOT selling it at all in this scenario that you're proposing wouldn't make sense at all.

Besides, his wording doesn't exactly express such dire financial needs. He said quote: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it."
Not exactly something you'd imagine someone in dire need for cash say. More the kind of thing a scrupple-less greedy person would say.


Again, you insist on making unfounded assumptions in trying to justify immorality. Please don't judge people without a complete comprehension of their situation, which doesn't include any fabrications that you may conjure up.
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/11/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Because if he really needed money that bad, he would take the money that the husband would be able to provide, and then make a deal to be compensated later, as he might then be able to strike a similar deal with whomever he had to pay money to. It would be better than not selling it at all.
NOT selling it at all in this scenario that you're proposing wouldn't make sense at all.

Besides, his wording doesn't exactly express such dire financial needs. He said quote: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it."
Not exactly something you'd imagine someone in dire need for cash say. More the kind of thing a scrupple-less greedy person would say.


Again, you insist on making unfounded assumptions in trying to justify immorality. Please don't judge people without a complete comprehension of their situation, which doesn't include any fabrications that you may conjure up.


Oh, and you don't? Where did this "he needs money for himself and his family or they might die" scenario come from, then? TOTALLY an unfounded assumption. Stop being such a hypocrite.

From what we know, there is NOTHING that indicates that the pharmacist is in dire need of money. Both because it's not presented neither in the telling of the story, nor in the words of the pharmacist himself.
Thus, the most logical conclution is that he is NOT in dire need of money, which then justifies the theft of the medicine, as it would save the wife's life.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.