Author
|
Topic: Heinz's dilemma
|
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170
|
posted 25 February 2004 11:58 AM
We were discussing this in class yesterday (Carol Gilligan and moral philosophy), and I thought it might be interesting to see how babblers respond:Heinz’s Dilemma In Europe, a woman was near death from a very bad disease, a special kind of cancer. There was one drug 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 make. 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 get together only about $1,000, which was 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.” Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.” - from Lawrence Kohlberg, The Philosophy of Moral Development (San Franscisco: Harper & Row, 1981). So, the question asked at this point is, should Heinz steal the drug? Consider it, then click here to see if you answered typically. (paragraph 2) I am atypical.
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 25 February 2004 12:27 PM
Seems to me that this question is pre-configured to be as paradoxical as possible. Certainly nobody is going to be rooting for the wife to die; we want her to get the drug. And of course the pharmacist is charging an egregious amount for the drug (the example doesn't make it clear whether the extra $1800 in the price represents operating costs and research and development costs, or whether it's just pure naked greed). And hopefully, even though the chemist expressed a wish to "make money" (which does beat starving, by all accounts), we'll recognize that he has at least some right to the fruits of his labours, or at least we'll recognize that if he doesn't have a right to his ideas, nobody else has one either. All in all, carefully crafted to be all but unanswerable.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169
|
posted 25 February 2004 02:59 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mr. Magoo: Of course. Physically assaulting Heinz and stealing $200 worth of radium from him is the right of any "victim". Maybe Heinz should lobby his government for socialized health care, so that he's not forced to become a violent criminal in order to save his wife.
Maybe he should lobby government to put a reasonable limit on drug profits so that life saving medicine in not the exclusive domain of the rich? Remember the story also explains that the husband went throght much effort to meet the druggists demands . . . certainly the druggist has a right to make a profit, but he also owns a debt to society for providing him the opportunity to make a profit . . . gouging society is not, IMO, a good way to pay back society for all it has provided. [ 25 February 2004: Message edited by: No Yards ]
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934
|
posted 25 February 2004 07:06 PM
Well as Qa'bong noted, just bash the guy and use the drug. But that's only if you love your wife.Must Heinz be the standard bearer for Socialism® or Capitalism® ? Let's get to the point. What is it, anyway? [ 25 February 2004: Message edited by: Tolok ]
From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 26 February 2004 12:07 PM
quote: I can see where it would be a dilemma for those who value single instance profits as equal to a human life.
I usually admire your posts, but this line is simplistic at best. I don't think anyone, here or anywhere else, would try to simply equate a human life with $1800. But there is a greater principle here. Do you have an innate "right" to something I have, just because you feel you need it? Certainly this question has been constructed so as to give the maximum consternation for the buck, but we could have as easily described another situation to test the validity of either opinion. "Bob currently owes $10,000 in gambling debts, and a local loanshark has threatened to kill him if he doesn't pay up. He has no job, but his neighbour seems to work hard and is doing alright. Is it ethical for Bob to rob his neighbour, in order to save his own life?" Now the question isn't tainted by sentimental feelings for the poor sick wife, nor by profits on the part of the neighbour. Really, all we're asking now is "is the neighbour a partner in Bob's misfortune?".
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 26 February 2004 12:41 PM
quote: Bob knowingly got himself into his problem by breaking the law for no other reason than his own entertainment.
There's a lot of assumptions there. Who knows? Maybe Heinz' wife contracted cancer after eating an unhealthy amount of smoked foods. Maybe Bob only gambled once in his life, and lost. Anyway, gambling and borrowing money aren't illegal, are they? quote: I wonder if Heinz could claim a necessity defense if he stole the medication.
Hmm.. I suspect that any society that didn't regard this new Cancer cure as "necessary" for all wouldn't accept a plea of necessity from someone who stole it. Anyway, we seem to agree that the neighbour, in my example, is NOT a partner in Bob's misfortune. He doesn't share in Bob's gains, he has no input into Bob's choices, therefore he shouldn't be on the hook to pay for Bob's losses. Return to Heinz. How is the druggist a partner in Heinz' misfortune? Certainly it would be nice if he handed over the medicine for free, or at cost, or put the formula in the public domain, but if he hasn't, under what grounds would you argue that he must?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 29 February 2004 09:27 AM
There is one aspect to this case that nobody has examined. Is the drug a cure, or will Heinz's wife require continuous treatment in order to survive? Since she is described as having cancer, I would suspect the latter. In this case, stealing a dose of the drug will not save her, though it might buy her some time. Problem is, he's very unlikely to be able to steal it more than once, then he'll go to jail and his wife will die. After all, the suspect list for such a crime will be extremely short. If those are the only two choices, the overall effect on the community will be worse if he steals it than if he does not.Of course, if instead of stealing the drug he robs a bank in the next town and uses the money to buy the drug, there might be a better chance of saving her, since he's more likely to get away with it (lots of people have a motive to rob a bank, while very few have a motive to steal the drug itself). He'd buy her some time which would allow him to raise the money to buy the next dose- and if that still fails, time to rob another bank...
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888
|
posted 29 February 2004 02:42 PM
Interesting the subtle valuation of the two styles:icky: men's abstract meatheaded understanding of morality. Eww, abstract! Boy cooties! happy-flower-wonderful: women's relational and connected understanding of morality. Yay! Relational! Connected! Spray perfume everywhere! I tend to answer that the woman's life matters more, and in the real world, anyway, the situations are rarely that stark. I guess that puts me in the happy-flower-wonderful category on this.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|