Philosophy Justice and Heinz' Story

This is actually part of a study given by Kohlberg to determine stages of Moral development that people go through. It's also something that philosophers use to question what a just person is, and what he or she would do in this situation.

Note: There are no banks or anything where Heinz can get a loan for the rest of the money, it's either steal the drug or his wife dies.

 

It came from desperation. It seems that he loved his wife too much to let her go in a situation like this one. And i dont think the pharmasist had a waiting list for people to buy that drug.
Yes, I think he should have done that. Although stealing is wrong, it was up to a life here. It was nessecary to do so. I agree with the man, and I like the fact that he had taken such actions.
Now, the consequenses are good and bad, but he hopefully let the one he loves live longer.
It was Moral value to save a life, or Social value to not go to jail, and wait for his wife to die.
I would choose the same if the situation came to me.


- Kaiyon

 

There's no contest. He did the right thing, and there shouldn't be any denying it. The pharmacist must have been a real *jerk* to say something like that.

No, I would do the same thing he did, and I would do it 1000 times over, if I had to. It wouldn't even have to be for someone as close to me as a wife. I'd steal that drug for anyone who needed it, if I couldn't obtain it legally. I can't believe that guy was uncaring enough to value money over someone's life.

 

The point of this is really to test socalled "moral development", its totaly artificial situation, what they call a false dilemma, in real life there would be other options. Like someone said "he could have gone on Oprah" and got his $1000 many times over. I dislike this kind of test for that reason and the implied arrogance in the whole thing, evn if its not intended.

And if "its wrong to steal" so therefore let a person die, is an example of objective morality, then it can sit and spin.



Edit: BTW usually they ask how old you are when you answer this question. I'm 19.

 

The pharmacist was an idiot. You can't make money if nobody has the cash for it. A life was in question; the pharmacist wasnt even willing to barter.

 

I'd say that the pharmacist deserved what happened to him, since it was his morals that were all messed up. One of the reasons that someboody would train to get a job like that is to help people and try and save lives by giving them the medication that they need, not to try and further themselves by their own greed. Not to menation that since its a special kind of cancer then its a good chance that its pretty rare, so he wouldn't be makinng that money off people anyway.
Even though breaking and entering for the sake of somebody else would not hold up in a court, i still think that Heinz did the right think. I would rather go to jail and have the one i loved live, then not go to jail and watch her die. Cause she would still be there by the time i get out .

 

This is a very hard test.

A dilemma of Stealing and Killing is tough.

If one has the ability to save a person, why should one stand by and watch the person die and knowing there is a way to save a person, but one are not doing it? This would be no difference from killing a person like euthanasia.

If one can purchase a drug from a pharmacist, why would one steals? One needs not do that at all. One would give his whole life of riches to the pharmacist in exchange for a drug.

And seemingly this case, the debate is, giving one life of richness to the pharmacist v.s killing someone one loves.

For me, my answer will be an unique one.

I will beg the pharmacist for the drug to save my wife and sell my life of richness (since i am poor) to the pharmacist and be his slave. And if he dun like my bargain, i will shove the knife of blood to his hand, and say to him, 'You are murderer. You would have killed me, but you chose a defenseless being instead. You are worse than beast. Now, you can have a chance to prove yourself as one' (I ask him to kill my wife for me, like euthansia, at least i will feel better).

If the pharmacist doesnt kill my wife, i will kill himself and stole my wife the drug.

My answer in court is very simple, such a coward pharmacist who not only refuse to help, by selling the drug, he also refuse to help, by ending my wife misery, i have no choice. He treats the drug upon as a life for a life. And i am afraid he took his life upon which i stole. If he committed suicide, i would be guilty as whole. He doesnt deserve to live as much as i do. Grant me death sentence, please. Such a life is not worth living. I cannot exchange it even for my wife's soul.

 

Don't worry.. I'm not going to analyze people here, that's just creepy.

I agree that Heinz should have stolen the drug, it would be better for him to go to jail for a short while than to have his wife die. The law protects property for pretty good reasons, but really the principle of saving a life is much more important than materialism. I don't even know if he would get much time in prison for doing this either..

One thing that confuses me though, is that what if the radium doesn't cure his wife? I guess at least he'd go to prison feeling that he did the right thing.

 

Could the man sell his car or his house to buy his wife medication? could the husband work for the pharmacist for some time to work off the price of the medication? If not then...I would steal a drug to save a person i love. i know stealing is wrong, but if i had no other options but stealing, i would do it.

I wouldnt steal a Vercace bag just because i want it, I justify stealing only if a life depends on it and theres no other options available.

Plus, i think that stealing to save someones life is much more moral than not staling and leaving the person to die.