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 store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
And also, what are your thoughts on altruism? How many types are there? Are human beings altruists by default?
Few months ago, there's also a forumer posted a question like yours.
A girl was raped in a bus in China. All the pax ignore except for one guy. She chase the kind-hearted guy out of the bus. Next, she drive the bus down hill~ The guy then realised her intention. Everybody died in the bus.
Heinz should not have broke into the store and steal the drugs.
My reason behind this is because from the story, Heinz went around borrowing money from his friends. This implies that he has good moral values, and the thought of stealing had not came across his mind yet. This may also imply that heinz know the consequences of stealing.
On the other hand, since Heinz went around borrowing money, it also implies that altruism is 'present' in Heinz, as he had already sacrifice(in this case the time) to save his wife.
This eventually lead to heinz breaking into the store, as he wants to save a person's life. Moreover, it's his wife's life in this case. This is the point where altruism and "stealing to save someone's life 'kicks' in".
I believe humans and/or animals in general are altruism by default. Unless they are greatly affected by environmental influences.
Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:Few months ago, there's also a forumer posted a question like yours.
A girl was raped in a bus in China. All the pax ignore except for one guy. She chase the kind-hearted guy out of the bus. Next, she drive the bus down hill~ The guy then realised her intention. Everybody died in the bus.
wa scary
isn't it happening already?
big corporations were suing places like India for producing generic medication for their own population as the people could not afford the insanely high prices charged by the corporations for their patented drugs...
and it's going to get more insane in the future as doctors may not be allowed to diagnose patients because "medical procedures" may be patented so a doctor who knows of a procedure which may save the patient, may not be allowed to use it...
=> SCOTUS poised to legalise medical patents
so maybe this dilemma may end up on the doorsteps of doctors for real in the near future of SCOTUS goes ahead with this...
True altruism does not exist I think, there's always at least a subconcious reward.
But the story you initially posed, there's no form of altruism, as the druggist already intended to profit and Heinz wanted to save his wife which in a way, is something dear to him. I would say Heinz and Druggist are selfish, opposite of altruism.
However, in the bus scenario, the good guy displays form of altruism as he gains no benefit from saving a stranger.
I still think for every action, there's a reward, hence purest form of altruism is inexistent. In short, just acknowledging that you did/must do something good, is a pyschological reward.
Originally posted by MyPillowTalks:Heinz should not have broke into the store and steal the drugs.
My reason behind this is because from the story, Heinz went around borrowing money from his friends. This implies that he has good moral values, and the thought of stealing had not came across his mind yet. This may also imply that heinz know the consequences of stealing.
On the other hand, since Heinz went around borrowing money, it also implies that altruism is 'present' in Heinz, as he had already sacrifice(in this case the time) to save his wife.
This eventually lead to heinz breaking into the store, as he wants to save a person's life. Moreover, it's his wife's life in this case. This is the point where altruism and "stealing to save someone's life 'kicks' in".
I believe humans and/or animals in general are altruism by default. Unless they are greatly affected by environmental influences.
Hmmm... if Heinz putting himself at risk for his wife is a 'good' and sacrificial act... why should he not steal from the chemist? Without the drug his wife will die...
Originally posted by soleachip:Hmmm... if Heinz putting himself at risk for his wife is a 'good' and sacrificial act... why should he not steal from the chemist? Without the drug his wife will die...
Ohh...
Yes he should have stole from the chemist due to the reasons
I thought the question was asking should his act of stealing have happened.
Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
That is for Heinz to decide.
The druggist has his rights to have his property protected by the state.
If Heinz broke into the drug store and steal the cure, he would have committed theft. Plain and simple.
He knows the drug is there. He know there is opportunity for his wife to live.
If he do not know of the drug. He would resign to the fate that his wife would die.
Why he committed theft, is know, in the trial it would be presented as motive.
If he is convicted, he can use his wife illness as a migitigating factor to plea for leniency.
His defence could be mental illness, due to his wife's illness.
As for the drugist, we leave him to his conscience.
His only offence could be overcharging, under the Trade Act, if the drug is covered by the Act.
Once the case goes to court, the judge cannot say poot thing, and throw the case out.