evil/sin

quote from quango
We are all right.

Do we still not see the flaw in subjective morality? Indeed Seerof (sorry to use you name in vain) and jagdflieger decide (using their subjective morality) that people who use the screen name "quango" are incredable evil and should be done away with. In the meantime, quango (using his subjective moral system) decides that all people who use airplanes in their avatars are evil and should be done away with (jagdflieger, jetsetter, etc.). In the meantime Helen670 and Valhall (using their subjective moral system) decide that all people who use or have used the word "general" in their screen name or have used pictures of military personell in their avartars must be done away with. Meanwhile MaskedAvatar and DragonRider decide .....

After the smoke clears, and all the members of the ATS forum lie dead or dying leaving only William and Simon to decide how to start over, William turns to Simon and says, "Well, they were all right."

jagd

Your lack of closure ..... on my own decision is indeed prophetic, as it no doubt is for dr too.

I liked your moral tale, but I would rather have some friends left to play with.

Well sorry about that MaskedAvatar, after the ATS2.0 war caused by the subjective morality of screen names and avatars, you will just have to rebuild from the ruins. Perhaps there will still be DragonRider and Thomas Crowne.

Its all relative Jagd...really.
You have your ways and means for defining morality, right and wrong, good and evil as I or anyone else does...
We are all entitled to such, after all, it is a matter of perception and choice.
Immoral or moral, good or evil, wrong or right are not intrinsic conditions. They are based on subjective judgements in a personal value system based on our experiences, what we are taught, what we hear, read, see, etc. By your subjective judgements do you create your Self ---- by your personal values do you determine and demonstrate who you are.....

regards
seekerof

An objective morality would require a mutually agreed upon source for the moral imperative. A source whose reaction is consistent under all conditions and in every way an aspect of objective reality.

What is then suggested is a code of ethics which inherently responds to every condition by virtue of an objective, observable source (alive and clearly animated). Who ability to interact constitutes what all can agree upon (masses) as incapable of error with respect to moral conclusions.

Jad in reality and for that matter morally the only individual which would fit that role would be God.

A conclusion that any person, culture, society or tribe has been completely objective with respect to resenting what God feels are moral absolutes. Precludes the idea that any wars fought by that group for religious reasons are not relatable to the aforementioned moral imperative.

Killing to justify survival is one thing, but keep in mind that cultures have killed and have justified those actions on the basis that it was required for there God to survive.

One can then understand how so many have killed as a result of there "objective" definition of God.

Clearly, an objective definition of Gods intent would, due to the subjective nature of man's interpretation (and subsequent objective response), require a more objective personification of God so as to avoid what are very likely (my opinion) misinterpretations of his plan and the evil, which results from those who think they are not commiting sins
but in fact are.


More on the issue of objective morality......

aok.positiveatheist.com...


Any thoughts?

[Edited on 16-8-2003 by Toltec]

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Do we still not see the flaw in subjective morality?

Why do you see so much wickedness everywhere?

First, you haven't been reading what I write, because if you had you would understand that I wouldn't decide that all people who use airplanes in their avatars are evil and should be done away with.
Neither would most people.
Also, Helen670 and Valhall (using their subjective moral system) decide that all people who use or have used the word "general" in their screen name or have used pictures of military personell in their avartars must be done away with you left out the part where the friends of those thus singled out stand up for and help their friends. Or God forbid, a complete stranger lifting up a hand to help his fellow man!

I know you were telling the story to make a point, but you must think every person is mad, wicked and crazed if that's what you think the result would be. People have positive traits, too. They help each other, they fight injustice, they protect their families, friends, the weak.
ETC.


Think:
The people who see wickedness and evil all around them, conspiring against them - these are the people who declare others evil and choose to do away w/ them.

Study Question:
1.Why do they see Evil everywhere?
(A)Because it is.
(B)Because they want it to be so they can feel righteous whilst fighting it.

Quango, I not saying that everyone is mad, wicked, or evil. The point I am asking is: Using subjective morality concepts (each society makes its own morality) how can differences between cultures and groups be resolved? In a non-theist view point, the best you can do is say "I do not like what Culture X is doing". However the people in Culture X can look at Culture Y (your group) and saw, "We don't like what the people in Culture Y are doing". So now we have two cultures (Culture X and Culture Y) who have two different views which are mutually exclusive but which each hold to be valid (We have Culture X who say "A" and Culture Y who say "notA"). How do you resolve the difference? Using relative morality how can you say which is valid ("A" or "notA")? If these two cultures happen to lie in different geographical areas, there may not be a problem. However now add an additional complication, both groups must exist within the same geographical area and also both groups maintain that their particular view must be adopted by everyone (Culture X says everyone must adopt "A"; Culture Y says everyone must adopt "notA"). Now how do you resolve this problem using relative morality concepts?

Also take as an example ubermunche's point about cultures where women do not have much in the way of civil rights (captive women). Now we have a culture where women do enjoy civil rights (liberated women). So now we have two different cultures to consider: Cultures Type A (captive women) and Cultures Type B (liberated women). Now the tenets of relative morality state that both cultures must be treated as being equally valid as to their view points on how women should be treated. Indeed since the society determines the moral system, then each society gets to determine its rules on the treatment of females. As a member of Culture Type B, you cannot make a valid criticism of Cultures Type A except to say "Well that is not how we treat our women - they are free in our Culture". However beyond that, you have no basis to condemn Cultures Type A because you have no basis to state that their treatment of women is invalid.

On the other hand, I being a theist have a basis to criticize Cultures Type A (i, e., the way you treat women is contrary the Will of God, or Allah, etc.).

Jad (for the sake of example) I one person believes in the death penalty and another does not, the issue becomes one related to the political and cultural hierarchy which allows a society to function.

The inherent right to have one concern's aired with respect to if an act is evil or a sin (or not) is for the most part resolved in this matter (the alternative to this is often the cause for arguments, wars ect....)

The right of expression is not better or worst with respect to one being a theist. To whit, history presents clearly that one for of conceptualizing God is no better than the other. Again, such a differentiation in regard to basic human rights is for the most part legislated.

Be it by a democracy, socialism, communism or a caste system (in general). The lessons of history are very clear and forgetting them is probably the largest mistake a person, society or culture can make.

Any thoughts?

Well Toltec, how would you respond to the type of cultures pointed out by ubermunche (cultures where women do not have much in the way of civil rights)? How would you respond to them? Would you consider their treatment of women equally valid as our treatment of women?

Jad, my opinion on women and there inherent equality to men is well documented at this site.

With respect to the topic my conduct with respect to women clearly applies the conclusion that to treat them otherwise is incorrect, furthermore, slavery to me morally repugnant.

Clearly one cannot act to suppress or otherwise imply that no consideration should be given to another based upon race, creed or color.

Stated simply a review of the UN charter offers the names of every nation in the world which accepts these fundamental tenets. Granted not all adhere but with respect to what is apparent all do agree at least in writing and signature (which for the record is a matter of personal honor and self respect).

Any thoughts?

Well Toltec let's look at my contentions:
1. In relativistic moral theory, one societies moral dictates are just as good as another societies moral dictates. As example, I illustrated two different cultures. For the sake of brevity, I will call them the "captive women" cultures and the "liberated women" cultures. If one believes or accepts the concept of relative morality, then one would have to say that both cultures treatment of women within the culture would be equally vaild. The worst the relativistic moralist of one culture can say about the other is something on the order "I do not like the way that culture treats women". The relativistic moralist in the "liberated women" cultures can only say, "I believe the way the "captive women" cultures operate is wrong (on the subject of how women are treated)". On the other hand, the relativistic moralist in the "captive women" culture can also say, "I believe the way the "liberated women" cultures operate is wrong (on the subject of how women are treated)". Since we are dealing with relative morality, there is no real way to say which culture is right except for personal choice. The relative moralist would have to say, "Well both cultures are "right" in their treatment of women - it is a matter of personal choice". He has no basis except personal choice to decide which culture is correct.
2. However you posted and I concur with your statements:
"Jad, my opinion on women and there inherent equality to men is well documented at this site.
With respect to the topic my conduct with respect to women clearly applies the conclusion that to treat them otherwise is incorrect, furthermore, slavery to me morally repugnant.
Clearly one cannot act to suppress or otherwise imply that no consideration should be given to another based upon race, creed or color."
Well Toltec, you have just made several ABSOLUTE moral statements. Remember I concur, but I do not have any quams about making moral judgements and saying well these are Absolute Values which come from a Higher Authority. Therefore I have no qualms in calling "captive women" societies immoral and in violation of the Higher Authority and should be abolished.
3. You see the relativistic moralist has problems in presenting a logical basis for criticism of the morals of certain societes (such as the "captive women" societies) except to say, "I don't like ....". This is because if all moral values are relative, then all variations of these moral values are equally valid. There is no logical way to say which is better except for personal choice. Well if personal choice is the only criteria, then choosing a "captive women" society is just as good as choosing a "liberated women" society. However, if there is a Higher Authority with an Absolute Morality ("civil rights should be available for all") then there is a logical basis to say "liberated women" societies are more moral (thusly better) than "captive women" societies. Understand????

Jad a person who has religion in this country counts for the same amount of votes and one who does not.

Religion does not instill a person with superior moral values to justify that is wrong and again the lessons from history are clear.

That you feel they come from a higher authority is your opinion/faith/beleif/notion/conclusion that in and of itself does not make it better. What others think about alternative societies is there opinion and what qualifies them to discuss it is the fact they are human beings.

I understand where you are coming from but it has nothing to do with the reality of one person, one vote.

If a person is a relativistic, superficial, subjective moralist he or she still has one vote. If your in a population of ten to your one and they all feel that something is right while you feel its wrong, guess who wins. This is a standard is applicable to all sectors of society, and when the disagreement becomes serious that is why there are wars.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Well Toltec, how would you respond to the type of cultures pointed out by ubermunche (cultures where women do not have much in the way of civil rights)? How would you respond to them? Would you consider their treatment of women equally valid as our treatment of women?

But that is my point! Two theist cultures both claiming there laws come from God and that these are fixed, immutable moral standpoints have reached massively different outlooks. Therefore Gods laws are as subjective as any man made moral veiwpoint. IMO most basic moral issues, don't kill/steal/sleep with your friends wife, came about from common sense observations of what actions promoted stability within the prevelant culture, perhaps religion was used to enhance these at some point but mankind came to these realisations of his own violition.

Toltec, you miss the point. How do you deal, assess, or view a nation different that the USA which has ethical standards that are in complete variance with your ethical standards? Countries which have ethical standards which are totally repugnant to what you believe.

I would tend to view it subjectively. This "culture or cultures" you elude to have their own religious beliefs and practices, do they not? And then subjectively, who is to say that they are wrong or right, immoral or moral, evil or good, when in their religious beliefs and doctrines, they feel they are right? Are you saying that "your" religion and beliefs, views and opinions overrule theirs? You both believe in the same God. I may not like certain practices or beliefs of other religions, etc., but who am I to say that what I see, subjectively, is correct when applying it to someone elses beliefs, opinions, views, religion, etc?


I also would think that if one professes to be a Christain and a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ that you handle as He would....with gentleness, kindness, tolerance, love, etc. Not as one who acts contrary to Jesus Christ's teachings and believes that his way, belief, and religion dictates that condemantion on the judging of others, regardless of race, color, creed, religion differences, cultural practices, etc.

Did not Jesus Christ say: "Judge/Condemn not, that you be not judged. For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, Let me remove the speck out your eye; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brothers eye." (Matthew 7:1-6)

Does not scripture also speak of judging and condemnation say: "Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things." (Romans 2:1)

Did not also Jesus Christ say: "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first........Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one......" (John 8:7-9)


If one cannot have tolerance, love, compassion, etc., for anothers religious beliefs, etc., are you not as those, who have been historically documented, that decided that their religion was "superior" to another and thus proclaimed wars, death, etc. in the very same manner? God is all encompassing, all are loved by God. There is no one who has the right to judge another, for what ever reason other than subjectively....but then to do so from a religious perspective and claiming your religion is correct or superior or overrides another because of your own subjective conclusions and beliefs, interpretations, etc. is foolish.

There is only one Judge. There is only one who can truly condemn and pass/give judgement....God. When man does it, it based on subjective conclusions, etc. and is falliable....and then to apply it to God is just making a mockery of God. Ultimately, who has the final say on immoral and moral, right and wrong, evil and good? Certainly not the finite mind of man. History shows the fallacy of man trying to do so........

regards
seekerof





[Edited on 17-8-2003 by Seekerof]

In ancient days you conquered them killed anyone who disagreed with you and let those live who either agreed or kept quite. Those who agreed you put in charge and provided them with the format they would apply to others in respect to education, understanding of history ect....

Today we have the UN Charter

www.unhchr.ch...

The policies with respect to admission to the UN are clear and while time is a factor the goal is apparent.

Clearly the intent of the Charter does not preclude some measure of enforcement and note no mention of God is apparent. Freedom of religion does imply that the right not to have a religion precludes one from being seen in the same light as one who does have a belief in a religion.

Now what we are going to do is examine some different moral theories and compare how certain actions of the advocates of each theory may or may not be consistent with that theory of ethics. Initially we will consider how certain actions performed by a person relates to being consistent with their theory of morality. For you see a person may state that they believe in a certain theory of morality, but their actual actions are inconsistent with that theory (They may talk like a communist, but they act like a capitalist.)

1. The subjectivist theory of morality. The subjectivist contends that morals are all subjective judgements based on a personal value system. What we believe to be right or wrong are entirely dependent on our culture, how we grew up and were taught, etc. The subjectivist contends that there are no good acts or evil acts, there are only acts. The catch phrase of the subjectivist could be, �Who are we to judge?�

2. The relativist theory of morality. The relativistic theory of morality is quite similar to the subjectivist theory. The relativist contends that morals are basically a matter of personal choice. What we believe is right or wrong is what we chose to believe what is right or wrong. The relativist basically sees no difference between saying �Action A is good� and saying �Action A is not good�. To the relativist, it is merely a difference in point of view. The catch phrase of the relativist could be, �Whatever floats your boat.�

3. The absolutist theory of morality. The absolutist believes that there are moral prerogatives that exist independent of personal choice, culture, etc. Whether it is Natural Law (atheist) or Divine Law (theist), the absolutist contends that there are moral dictates that apply to all people and all cultures. Cultures which advocate values which are contrary to the tenets of these moral dictates are wrong and are performing immoral acts. The catch phrase of the absolutist could be, �We hold these truths to be self evident - this applies to all cultures, all people�.

Now also there are both theists and atheists who ascribe to each of the three moral theories. The are theists who advocate the theory of subjective morality, there are atheists who advocate subjective morality. There are theists who believe in relativistic morality; there are atheists who advocate relativistic morality. Then there are atheists who hold to the absolutist theory of morality, and of course there are theists who believe in the absolutist theory of morality. In short the various theories of morality cut across the lines of theism versus atheism.

Now in previous postings, we conjecture to different cultures. In one culture (nation), women are granted civil rights equal to men. We will call this L-Nation (for women liberated country). In the other culture (nation), women have no civil rights and are basically treated as property. We will call this C-Nation (for women held captive country). Now the moral concepts of the people of L-Nation are pretty much the same. All the people of L-Nation believe in basic civil rights for all, there is no major disagreements as to the moral beliefs. The big disagreement in L-Nation is the moral theories adapted by the people of L-Nation. In L-Nation we have:

1. Subjective Moralists who say L-Nation�s moral system got the way it did because of historical factors and the way we were trained to believe in L-Nation�s Moral Code.
2. Relativistic Moralists who say L-Nation�s moral system got the way it did because everybody choose to believe in L-Nation�s Moral Code.
3. Absolute Moralists who say L-Nation�s moral system is based on a system that is inherently right whether you want to say Natural Law or Divine Law. We believe in L-Nation�s Moral Code because it is the right moral code. In your hearts you know it is intrinsically right.
The question is how does the people of L-Nation deal and respond with the situation in C-Nation. What should the people of L-Nation do? Everyone in L-Nation agrees that what is happening in C-Nation is repugnant to L-Nation�s Moral Code. No one in L-Nation disagrees with the statement that, �Women in C-Nation have the status of slaves (except for the mistresses and prostitutes who deal with upper class men)�.

Now let us examine a conversation between SubAt and SubChris about the situation in C-Nation. SubAt is considered the leader of the atheists of L-Nation who are subjective moralists, and SubChris is considered the leader of the theists of L-Nation who are subjective moralists.
SubAt: It strikes me that the way women are treated in C-Nation is terrible; they are treated like dirt.
SubChris: Well now do not be judgmental, if we were raised in C-Nation we would believe the same way they do.
SubAt: Well what do you think we should do?
SubChris: Well for us to say or do anything about C-Nation would be judgmental. How can we say we are right? What gives us the right to interfere with their culture?
SubAt: Well, I guess you are right, we can only hope that one day the people of C-Nation will come to our way of thinking.
For the subjective moralist to do anymore than the above would be inconsistent with the theory of subjective morality.

Now let us examine a conversation between RelAt and RelChris about the situation in C-Nation. RelAt is considered the leader of the atheists of L-Nation who are relativistic moralists, and RelChris is considered the leader of the theists of L-Nation who are relativistic moralists.
RelAt: It strikes me that the way women are treated in C-Nation is terrible; they are treated like dirt.
RelChris: I agree with you. I do not like the way the women are treated there. But how are we to know if their way is any better than ours? After all, it is their society, how can determine if our way is any better than there way?
RelAt: Well what do you think we should do?
RelChris: Well I did publish an editorial in my newspaper saying how I did not like the way the women were treated in C-Nation. I said I thought it was wrong. I also sent some letters to the leader of C-Nation stating that I did not like how they treated women there and that I thought it was wrong.
RelAt: Wow! I guess you really told off the leader of C-Nation. How have they responded to your letters.
RelChris: I don�t know - the only thing I can really say is that the letters were sent back soak in urine.
RelAt: Well what else do you think we should do?
RelChris: Well we have done all we can do already about the situation in C-Nation. About the only thing we can do is keep publishing editorials and sending letters to the leaders of C-Nation.
For the relativistic moralist to do anymore than the above would be inconsistent with the theory of relativistic morality.

Now let us examine a conversation between AbsoAt and AbsoChris about the situation in C-Nation. AbsoAt is considered the leader of the atheists of L-Nation who are absolutist moralists, and AbsoChris is considered the leader of the theists of L-Nation who are absolutist moralists.
AbsoAt: It is terrible the way the women in C-Nation are treated. Slaves in the southern states of America before their Civil War were treated better.
AbsoChris: The women of C-Nation do have the status of slaves. It strange that the prostitutes they import for the leaders are treated fairly well.
AbsoAt: Yeah and they are paid quite well from what I heard. But don�t you think it is time that something be done to correct the situation in C-Nation? Let us forget our theological differences for the time being and focus our attention to C-Nation.
AbsoChris: Indeed we have made a commitment to eliminate slavery or any form of slavery in the world. Do you have any ideas as what we could do short of military action?
AbsoAt: Well I was thinking we could organize an economic boycott of C-Nation and then step the pressure with other options as time goes on. The military option could possibly be used as a last option.
AbsoChris: There is a start of a resistance movement in C-Nation. Perhaps we could discretely channel aid into that movement.
AbsoAt: Indeed we could. Maybe start a revolution there.
AbsoChris: It could possibly effect some change there. Let us both think about what else we can do and meet again in a few days.

The histories would note that a few years after the initial meeting of AbsoAt and AbsoChris, the leadership sign a law, although reluctantly, which granted basic civil rights to all people, male and female, of C-Nation.

The question I ask is this: In the situation hypothetically presented above, what are we supposed to do? Now situations such as this are not as uncommon as one thinks. How do you respond to a situation which you consider to be a gross violation of what you consider to be moral behavior. Now I am not talking about such things as whether baseball or soccer should be the national game, I am talking about basic moral considerations (i. e., people are being held in a condition equivalent to slavery). Now I see three possible course of actions:
1. Do nothing - after all who are we to judge.
2. Say that we do not like what is being done, but attach no particular moral imperative to the statement (�We do not like what your culture is doing when it does �Act A�, in our culture we consider that wrong�.)
3. Attach a moral imperative to your statement and be prepared to act accordingly. (�When your culture does �Act A�, you reduce people to the level of slaves - that is wrong. No one should be a slave. If you do not correct this situation, our nation will no longer do business with yours.�)

While many people will decry Option 3, then why is Option 1 or Option 2 any better? If there is some basic moral consideration (people are dying, people are reduced to being slaves, etc.) and if your personal moral code sees that as being a extreme violation of your moral code then why is it wrong for you to speak out and perhaps be prepared to �put your money where you mouth is�. Again I am talking about basic moral values - not petty issues. Is it wrong to speak out and act when you see a gross violation of what you believe to be right?

While many people will decry Option 3, then why is Option 1 or Option 2 any better? If there is some basic moral consideration (people are dying, people are reduced to being slaves, etc.) and if your personal moral code sees that as being a extreme violation of your moral code then why is it wrong for you to speak out and perhaps be prepared to �put your money where you mouth is�. Again I am talking about basic moral values - not petty issues. Is it wrong to speak out and act when you see a gross violation of what you believe to be right?

As human beings, were are seldom consistent in our morality. There is no absolute way to behave here...even within the same general morality, as some individuals in the culture, will go one route on an issue, while others will take another. It doesn't make one more right then another....and that's really the whole point. When it comes to morality, there are rarely absolutes....therefore, your question cannot be answered truthfully, other than: One way is not more right than any other, it would be up to the individual of that society, to do what he felt to be the right thing. Whether the right thing is silence, or speaking out.

[Edited on 18-8-2003 by Gazrok]

OK I am surmizing now that most of you don't fully know the following...

Level I:

Preconventional Morality (age 4 - 10) Moral value resides in a person's own needs and wants

Stage1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation Individual's moral judgment is motivated by a need to avoid punishment.

Stage 2: Instrumental-Relativist Orientation Individual's moral judgment is motivated by a need to satisfy own desires.

Level II:

Conventional Morality(age 10 - 13) Moral values reside in performing good or right roles, in maintaining the convention order, and in pleasing others.

Stage 3: "Good Boy/Nice Girl" Orientation Individual's moral judgment is motivated by a need to avoid rejection, disaffection, or disapproval from others.

Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation Individual's moral judgment is motivated by a need to not be criticized by a true authority figure.

Level III:

Postconventional Morality (adolescence - adulthood) Moral Values reside in principles, separate from those who hold moral values in principles, separate from those who enforce them, and a part from a person's identification with the enforcing group. Most people never reach this last level.

Stage 5: Legalistic Orientation Individual's moral judgment is motivated by community respect for all, respecting social order, and living under legally determined laws.

Stage 6: Universal, Ethical Orientation Individual's moral judgment is motivated by one's own conscience.

Examples of Stages 1 Through 6 The following are examples of each stage at each of Kohlberg's levels.

Stage 1: I do not say bad words because if I do, mommy will get mad at me.

Stage 2: For a cookie, I will pick up my toys.

Stage 3: I do not eat in class because my teacher does not like it.

Stage 4: I do not talk during a fire drill because that is one of the rules.

Stage 5: I pay taxes because it is the law.

Stage 6: I pay taxes not because it is the law, but because it is the right thing to do.

Now Test Yourself How would you solve the following scenario which Kohlberg used on his research subjects? A man named Heinz had a dying wife. The wife had an almost fatal disease. The local druggest owned a $20,000 drug that could save her. Heinz could not raise the money in time and he certainly did not have the cash to buy the drug. Heinz therefore made a decision and that night he broke into the drug store and stole some of the medication. Should Heinz have done that?



My point, that I would explain quite differently to jagd, is that there is a collective consciousness aspect that begins at Stage 7, which is not subjectively or legalistically determined at all.

It has only begun to operate widely in the recent past. I do not put it down to a divine law, I put it down to the genetics of survival.

It exists. I am not prepared to say yet that I am a part of it, but I have met ATS members who certainly are.

Now Test Yourself How would you solve the following scenario which Kohlberg used on his research subjects? A man named Heinz had a dying wife. The wife had an almost fatal disease. The local druggest owned a $20,000 drug that could save her. Heinz could not raise the money in time and he certainly did not have the cash to buy the drug. Heinz therefore made a decision and that night he broke into the drug store and stole some of the medication. Should Heinz have done that?

Heinz was justified in his actions. I assume that the druggist would not give Heinz the drug unless he was paid the entire $20,000 - it seems that the druggist was operating with a motivation of greed. Indeed, the druggist could have:
1. Sold the drug to Heinz on a payment plan - take what money Heinz had and then set up payments for the remainder.
2. Sold the drug to Heinz for whatever Heinz had, and then forgive the debt of the remainder (perform some pro bono acts).
Heinz's motivation was to save the life of his wife. This of course assumes:
1. That Heinz took only the drug required to save the life of his wife.
2. That his wife was near death and that only quick application of the drug would save her.
What Heinz did was damage property to save life. Property can be replaced, the life of Heinz's wife could not be replaced. Most likely at worst, the druggist would have to replace a window or a door. Heinz was motivated by love and by the need to save life, the fact that he committed a break in and stoled was a secondary value. Also Heinz was most likely prepared to face the consequences for his actions (going to prison). A nice problem for situational ethics.