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? Why or why not?
2007-05-30 08:54:44 · 17 answers · asked by Erin C 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
This is a test of moral character designed by Lawrence Kohlberg. I am curious to see what level of moral development everyone stands at. I will list the levels in more detail after I see some of the answers.
2007-05-30 08:55:53 · update #1
Level 1 - Pre-Conventional - this level is generally found in children, although some adults can exhibit this level as well: (Stages 1 & 2)
(Stage 1 - Obedience and punishment) Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person. Or: Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200 and not how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.
Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would probably languish over a jail cell more than his wife's death.
2007-05-30 09:11:21 · update #2
Level 2 - Conventional - typical of adolescents and adults (stages 3 & 4)
Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband. Or: Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he tried to do everything he could without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.
Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal. Or: Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.
2007-05-30 09:13:13 · update #3
Level 3 - Post- Conventional - found only in adults - also called the principle level. This level is only found in adults who regard the principle of the matter above society's moral standards.
Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.
Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.
2007-05-30 09:15:39 · update #4
This is not to mean that Christians have morals and no one else does. Simply that many Christians claim higher morals. I am Christian and know many other Christians on the lower end of the moral development scale. This was not to offend, just to prove to some of my fellow Christians that they aren't as moral as they believe.
2007-05-30 09:17:56 · update #5
Was it wrong for him to steal the drug? Absolutely. Was it right for him to save a life even if he had to steal to do so? Again, absolutely. The morality involved with saving a life outweighs the morality involved with the rules of society.
2007-05-30 09:03:40 · answer #1 · answered by Sun: supporting gay rights 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Clearly the Druggist is not Jewish. If he was Jewish, he would sell the drug to the man for $1000. For the following reasons:
1. The Torah requires it of him.
2. A man is required to do tsdakah. (Often translated as "charity" but it means more than that. Tsdakah you must do, charity is optional. ) He would be doing $1000 worth of tsdakah by discounting his price by half.
3. He would be allowing others to do tsdakah. All those who donated money (not those who loaned money) would be doing good also and helping save a life.
4. Save a life you and save the world. If you count generations, that woman may someday be an ancestor of every living person. By helping save her, he helped save the world.
5. A man is entitled to earn money. Selling for less due to need would not harm the druggist. In fact, it would give him $1000 that he other wise would not have.
6. If the druggist is Jewish and acts like is stated in this story, the husband will go away not cursing the druggist, but cursing Jews. It would be to the benefit of all Jews for the druggist to do good works and help the Christian.
7. Lastly, the druggist would have seen how desperate the man was. The druggist would have known that desperate people do desperate things. By selling the drug the druggist could have helped the man and prevented the man in desperation from breaking the law and the Commandments. A good Jew should never put a person into a position where the only thing they can do is sin. If you force a person to sin, you are just as guilty of the sin.
2007-05-30 19:43:11 · answer #2 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, in my personal opinion they were both wrong. The druggist for being greedy and not wanting to help someone in need.... and Heinz for stealing..... but in my personal opinion I think the saving of a life is far more important than the desire for monetary advancement so I would say that Heinz, whos only desire was to have his wife in better health, was less wrong than the greedy druggist. No one was harmed by the theft of the drug, and it was for a good cause. (assuming there are no unmentioned variables that have been left out)
p.s. i'm not christian either.
2007-05-30 16:03:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Heinz should NOT have broken into the laboratory. Whether the druggist was gouging the customer or not, it was still not Heinz's property to take.
Now, if I were in Heinz's place would I have stolen the drug for my wife? In a heartbeat -- it'd be worth the risk to save my wife, and I could always plead diminished mental capacity due to my grief over my wife if the case ever went to court.
2007-05-30 16:01:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If a person is overpowered with love for someone than a break in into the man's store can be considred an act of love. The druggist did not base his decision on love but greed, therefore he is wrong when measured in spiritual terms. The problem here is that it is wrong to refuse help, if one has the means to help, and yet it is also wrong to rob someone because of the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." If one wants to label me a thief in the night because I wanted to help a loved one, then so be it....I can ask God to forgive my sin after I help my wife. Sometimes in life, it takes wrongdoing to correct a wrong. Do two wrongs make a right? Well, in Algebra minus time minus equals positive.
2007-05-30 16:23:20 · answer #5 · answered by Joline 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on how quickly the drug was needed. If I had time to raise more money, I would. If there was no time and I had the choice of breaking the law or saving a life, then it's no choice at all. My moral code is essentially "Do what you like, do what you need, but don't hurt anyone else in the process". As the druggist is not really hurt...he can always synthesize more, then there is no real damage done.
2007-05-30 16:01:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't think he should have broken into the mans store after all stealing for any reason is steal stealing.
Rather he should find a way to get around him if he has a wife speak to her and try to get her to convince him.
Also there are many wealthy people and charitable organizations willing to help.
You stated that Heinz went to people he knew, he should try some people he doesn't know, people are very sympathetic to these situations.
2007-05-30 16:06:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
If he didn't steal the drug, it would be for fear of prosecution for stealing. Therefore, his motives would be selfish.
If he did steal it, it might be simply because he was concerned what others would think about him if he let his wife die.
Or he could steal it simply and altruistically to save his wife, regardless of the consequences.
Am I remembering it right?
As to which is more Christian, on the one hand, Thou Shalt Not Steal. On the other hand, I believe it's in Proverbs that the man who does not take care of his family is worse than an infidel. So yeah, I think the right thing to do is to take care of your loved ones whom God gave you. Which is what my heart would tell me to do anyway.
2007-05-30 16:08:23 · answer #8 · answered by hoff_mom 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd break into the guy's store, steal the drug, leave $200, and hire a lawyer with the remainder. But I'm no Christian.
2007-05-30 15:59:14 · answer #9 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Tough situation. I pray that I would not have to be in this man's shoes. I would like to believe that I would not steal the drug for my wife. God is sovereign and all things work together for His glory. I hope I would trust God to supply my needs according to His riches in Glory. That is the Christian and biblical answer.
But as I stated... one truly can't answer that until they are faced with it.
Hope this helps. God Bless You! Nick19
2007-05-30 18:13:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋