It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is a Test! Are you a moral person? If so, how moral?

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
IMO the druggist is stealing via his ridiculous price that he slapped on the radium.

A eye for an eye ... makes the whole world equal ;-)




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Yes he should have stolen the drug to help save his wife's life and left whatever money he could afford in payment.

1) What would you do?

Exactly what I think Heinz should've done above.

2) Why? Are you justified?

To save my wife's life and yes, I think its completely justified.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?

Relative concept ... It depends on the situation and in this one, I don't think it is a sin. If it is a sin, then its much less of a sin than letting someone die when you can help to save them.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?

Depends who's life. I think the life of another should trump all else - but then again there is this thing ... self conservation is the first rule of nature


5) What would the Good Samaritan do?

I reckon he would do as I've suggested above.

6) What would Martin Luther King do?

Same as the good samaritan.

7) Is sin really relative?

Yes.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Thx for the responses, I'll have to get back later with individual responses...

Just in case some missed it, here's Kolberg level of moral development and typical responses from each...


Stage one (obedience): 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.

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.

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.
more: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Good grief, I haven't seen this in years. This was a question to ponder in a child development class, taken from philosophy.

Situation Ethics.

Any child less than 12 years of age will say the husband should go to jail simply because he stole. Their brains are not yet sophisticated or developed enough at that age to be able to make the rather complicated adjustment. They still see the world in black and white. Of course, any adult would steal the medication.

Here is another one, much more complicated:

There is a war in a small village. It is being invaded by an enemy who will kill them all if they are discovered. They run into the woods to hide. All is quiet, the soldiers cannot see them and appear to be retreating, when a woman's newborn baby begins to cry. It's screaming. She is trying everything she can to get the baby to stop crying. If it continues to scream they will be discovered, and consequently they will all be slaughtered.

When one soldier stops, and begins to turn in her direction, thinking he has heard something, she knows that death is certain for all of them unless she gets the baby quiet now. She puts her hands over it's mouth and suffocates it until it is quiet. Until it is dead.

The soldier turns back with his comrades, thinking it must have been an animal he heard in the woods. They leave, and the villagers are safe.

Has she done the right thing?

(I think the answer in the first scenario was rather clear-cut........
this one....not so much).

[edit on 10/23/0909 by ladyinwaiting]


nope..thats not the right thing to do...if you ever start justifying killing people...and in this case innocent children...you are on a very dark road...where does it stop?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Hi OT,
This is a good question and a very "walking the line" scenario. In the eyes of the government, legal system and religion the man is wrong. In the eyes of the people, he is justified in taking that course of action.
Your story doesn't go any further into detail of trying to resolve the situation using other means. So, I take it the dialog was one of only this man and the druggist.

The action I would have taken.....start a movement to boycott his store, the drug is not the only thing he sells. If enough people rose up and took action with me, picketed his store, maybe he would either lower the price or donate the drug to settle the situation.
If after trying this and other avenues like community organizations and legal help and nothing helped... yes, I would steal it and probably stand up to the legal system and present my case to a jury of my peers.

Regarding your other questions about MLK,Jr., Sin and Morality.....can't comment on these, didn't know Martin personally, I am not religious, and morals are a two way street of which each person has their own.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
give this post a star
posted on 22-10-2009 @ 06:15 PM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:
DIGG ATS

for original
content
more info
This is a Test! Are you a moral person? If so, how moral?

Read the following dilemma...

The Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as follows:

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?[1]
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

1) What would you do?
I would definitely break in and take the medicine, I would leave what money I had and I would take the exact amount I needed. Later I would pay the difference.

2) Why? Are you justified?
To save my spouses life, hell to save anyone's life. Yes, I am justified, in my mind, and that's all that really matters to me.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?
Yes, stealing is a sin, thank God there's forgiveness, though that's usually reserved for those who are remorseful, which I would not be. The bigger sin is withholding the medicine because of an inability to pay. I am pretty sure if there is a God, he would back me on that.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?
Yes, it does.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?
A Good Samaritan would steal the medicine for me, so I would be in no danger of getting caught and thus not be able to care for my dying spouse.

6) What would Martin Luther King do?
He would speak out against the evils of holding a cure for profit. Saulk never patented his polio vaccine for that very reason.

7) Is sin really relative?
No a sin is a sin yet there are varying degrees. But realizing we are human and prone to sin is relative, to forgiveness.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by alienesque
 


They have put that scenario into a couple of movies, can't recall the names. But, in turn if the people of this village saw the soldiers doing the same they would rise up and attack them.
I would much rather die protecting an innocent baby, then have the innocent baby die protecting me.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
1) What would you do?
Make sure the wifes life insurance is paid up.

2) Why? Are you justified?
She won’t be needing any money.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not? Who cares

4) Does LIFE trump everything else? Life Insurance does

5) What would the Good Samaritan do? Help an old lady across the road

6) What would Martin Luther King do? Dude is dead move on!

7) Is sin really relative? Again who cares!



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I would get a prescription from my doctor and go to a pharmacy which would hand over the drug for £5 ........ due to all drugs on the NHS having a fixed cost. So the NHS saves me money and moral dilemmas!!



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
1) What would you do?

A: I have no idea. I can tell you what I would "Think" I would do but I could not tell you with any certainty unless I was actually in that situation.

2) Why? Are you justified?

A: There is a justification for every action. Regardless of my actions (or lack thereof) in the scenario the justifications would be "grey".

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?

A: The act of stealing is always wrong. The motivations for the theft are the real source of interest to me.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?

A: I am not wise enough to answer that question.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?

A: depends on who the good Samaritan is in this scenario. In a black and white world its nobody. In a grey world is could be all or none.

6) What would Martin Luther King do?

A: I should imagine he would help the man in need of the medicine to the best of his ability.

7) Is sin really relative?

A: In our world driven by biology and evolution it cannot be anything other then relative.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
If it were up to me,that greedy drug pusher would be found,apparent suicide.Like five shots to the head and the note apologising for the stupidity and greed pinned to his shirt.That would discourage others from similarly putting others at death's door when you were trained and given license to handle life helping materiels denied us regular folk.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 

IMHP

1) What would you do? Steal the damn thing, pay him back later

2) Why? Are you justified? Because I needed it, Yes its justified.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not? I'm not religious so I do not believe in sin, but yes stealing is always wrong, in this circumstance I acknowledge that my behavior is wrong and decide to do it anyway.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else? The preservation of life should

5) What would the Good Samaritan do? Steal from the rich (drugster) give to the poor (sickly)

6) What would Martin Luther King do? hold a boycott against the drug dealer until he gave it to her for free.

7) Is sin really relative? Nope.. Sometimes we need to do wrong in order to do an even greater good. Theres always Grey areas



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
The guy that invented the stuff has no morals so he should reap what he sows.

Take the bum oun in the sreet and shoot him take his discovery and let everyone know what it is.

End of story all is good just don't get caught shooting him, I'm sure you could find enough good people to aid you in the venture.

Right and wrong are perspective, like in the end does it even really matter if the guys wife were to die from cancer, I'm sure it does to him in the here and now but in the grand scale of things does anything even really matter?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I have never perclaimed to be a very moral person. I have the tint of breaking all Ten Commandments as well as the Seven Deadly Sins. I have an inner working of friends that have my upmost respect and love and will never wrong or harm in any way. Other than that....

I have come from a place where the ends justify the means. It's not something I'm proud of and I hope most of you out there can't rationalize with me. For that means you haven't been down the road I have.

Great post OP!



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
The choice is obvious for me: steal the drugs. Its the lesser of two evils, I'd rather have theft on my concience than the death of a loved one. Also, the protagonist has the opportunity to repay the druggist in the future if he steals the drugs.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by okamitengu
 


santa-avatar? I think?

What do you do with Hitler?

OT



Can I venture an answer please friend?

I would love the person no matter what they have done in life. In doing so I would be modelling the behaviour I seek in all people. I could not change what he was responsible for, but I can choose what I do. Love is the answer to all questions, even the ones left unasked.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
First off great topic.

Stealing is not good anyway you really look at it. Karma is bound to happen back to you. But doing it for a good reason as in to save someone's life is more than justified. It is noble. That trumps anything you can hope to accomplish in life i think. It shouldn't be about what a samaritan would do or martin luther king. Instead ask yourself what would a good man do?

I will put it to you like this. If and when i would die and i had to come to terms that i have made small sins like stealing. To save someone's life i would not feel the least bit of remorse or regret. Saving someone else's life is not wasting yours.

Its not about death and your judgement, its the way you lived. Truly can someone tell me what is holier than saving someone's life?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Read the following dilemma...


The Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as follows:

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?[1]
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

1) What would you do?

2) Why? Are you justified?

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?

6) What would Martin Luther King do?

7) Is sin really relative?

Have you read the Bible, in James 2:25? It says, "In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?"

How was she 'justified'???? By LYING? hmmm???

Thoughts?

OT

Thank you in advance for replying!




[edit on 22-10-2009 by OldThinker]


Let the wife die. life is about competition. the man did not achieve the formula of the drug by passively waiting for it to fall into his lap, therefore, the passive man who cannot afford the drug should not be allowed to benefit from it.

why? because the very nature that aroused the drug's discovery is the very one that prevents the undue one from benefiting from it.

i don't believe in sins...they are irrelevant. let people do what they feel is right, and sins are irrelevant. if i work to make something, i will charge what i feel it is worth if i share it with you. if you don't agree, then you will not share what i have made. period.

certainly life does not rule above all else. there must be death because unbridled life is unsustainable. people cannot live forever. the world / universe population would be unsustainable were everyone be able to live forever and REproduce.

skipping a few questions i feel are not relevant, sin IS relative. you ask a 'crazy' person what 'crazy' is...he/she will tell you a different idea than what a non'crazy' person will.

now, i'm tired of this BS about what crazy is. it is obviously subjective to the individual. let people kill other people. it's natural and in our nature to be crazy. let it be...



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Read the following dilemma...


The Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as follows:

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?[1]
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

1) What would you do? Would of checked somewhere else for a better price.

2) Why? Are you justified? Yes why not?

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not? Depends down here on earth STELAING HAS MANY definition.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else? Depends if someone elses life is involved.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do? check other places for the meds.

6) What would Martin Luther King do? I never met MLK rip.

7) Is sin really relative? SOmetimes AGAIN depends on what sin you speak of really.

Have you read the Bible, in James 2:25? It says, "In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?"

How was she 'justified'???? By LYING? hmmm???

Thoughts?

OT

Thank you in advance for replying!
WELCOME



[edit on 22-10-2009 by OldThinker]


[edit on 10/23/09 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

[story snipped]

1) What would you do?


Probably the same thing is my wife actually wanted to live. If she didn't then I would let/help her die. Otherwise, I would exhaust all realistic and legal means to acquire the drug. Once those fail, I'd resort to illegal means.



2) Why? Are you justified?


Yes, in my mind. And for me, that's all that matters.



3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?


No, I don't believe in sin. Is it wrong? Depends on the scenario and more importantly, what you believe. Will I steal? Yes. Have I stolen? Yes. When I believed the situation warranted the action. And I justified it by my own code and it was valid.



4) Does LIFE trump everything else?


No. Life is abundant and everywhere. One life isn't anymore important than another, nor is one life any more or less special than another.



5) What would the Good Samaritan do?


Probably have a breakdown trying to moralise the possible options while maintaining their integrity.



6) What would Martin Luther King do?


I have no idea, I never knew the man and speculation on what an individual *might* do is no realistic basis on what they *would* do. I could only guess. Perhaps he would have said that the individual had every right to the drug and shouldn't be denied the right to live. But likewise, as a man of rights and freedoms, surely the druggist has every right to sell/manage his product as he sees fit. After all, this is an economy we live it.



7) Is sin really relative?

Have you read the Bible, in James 2:25? It says, "In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?"


I'm an atheist so the morals and ethics I follow are the ones I arrived at through common sense, logical thought and rational reasoning. The Bible is nothing more than a collection of fabricated tales used as a means of imparting moralistic values on a society that was scared of everything around it because it simply had no understanding of the natural world.

What someone may have done 2000 years ago isn't a smart way to guide what one should do now. Well, IMO anywaze.

Interesting topic though. I do like reading how people try to quantify their decisions.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join