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

1) What would you do?

Hold the window open and watch for anyone trying to stop us.

2) Why? Are you justified?

As justified as the person making profit over life.

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

What is SIN? what is Life? stealing comes in many forms, was not killing supposed to be a commandment? so then it should be changed to thou shall not kill, unless you can make $3000 first.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?

Yes it does for the innocent, without exception.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?

What they can, be it legal or not, a life is a life, and then walk away and fade into the crowd, good Samaritans do not wait for the applause.

6) What would Martin Luther King do?

Tell us he had a Dream, about a World where this would not happen.

7) Is sin really relative?

What is Sin? other than a word used to Control? Laws enforced by those who Abuse, Control, take advantage of any situation, who do not see that the word law is as flexible as an elastic band, see under Man arrested and charged for making coffee at home whilst naked.

If I were the druggist I would have brokered some agreement either to a lesser cost or a payment at a later date. Lord knows I do that enough as it is. Unfortunately I tend to get burned a lot by people. Even with legally enforceable contracts but that's another matter. Come to think of it I've actually been burned far more than have had obligations met. Perhaps it's time to reevaluate my helpful and compassionate ways before I end up broke myself.

If I were the husband I definitely would have stolen the drug. What's a few months in jail for the life of my wife?

Who care's if it's a sin? That's between me and my god.

What would I do?

Having spoken to the druggist and having had it made clear to me that my $1,000 dollars wasn't acceptable I would try and find an alternative cure. Nothing would persuade me to steal from the druggist.

If my wife died I might get some bitter pleasure in sending an invitation to her funeral to the druggist. If that helped him to learn the error of his ways, then my wife's death wouldn't have been completely without merit.

Why? Are you justified?

That is the way I would behave. Looking for an alternative solution and refraining from stealing is what seems right to me.

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

Before reading this thread I hadn't realised the religious connotations of 'sin'. I just thought of it as wrong-doing. In my opinion, stealing is wrong. We could argue that we are all being stolen from every day by the ptb, greedy corporations, etc but in our normal, everyday lives we have no justification for stealing from each other. If we want to protest about the greed or corruption of our rulers we would be ill-advised to act individually, particularly if our protest involved stealing from them.

Does Life trump everything else?

No. The soul survives the death of the body and can find something else to do with itself. It doesn't have to be tied to a sickly body. The person who really suffers is the partner who has to live without their loved one. It would be a shame if they had to live without their integrity as well.

What would the good Samaritan do?

From the story I read, I'd suggest that he'd do his best and offer whatever assistance he could. I can't say where he'd draw the line.

What would Martin Luther King do?

I don't know, but I've read other people responses and I think I'd go along with the idea that he'd organise a rally or a protest or a fund-raiser.

Is sin really relative?

Possibly. I think most would agree that murder, rape, robbery, fraud, assault are wrong or immoral under most circumstances. Again, I find I can't say much about sin because of the religious 'thing'. Christianity isn't my belief system but I generally live by the 'doing unto others as I would like to be done to' rule. Of course, other people may have a different idea about how they'd like to be 'done to' I can but try.

1) What would you do? Ask the pharmacist to buy ½ a dose to see if it works. Then if so would look for the other money. If all failed take the medicine and leave the thousand dollars with an IOU.

2) Why? Are you justified? The person who is the robber and sinning in this case is the pharmacist for if it is within your power to do good and you with hold it from someone then it is sin on your part. Wisdom comes in knowing what is good in each unique situation we are faced with in life.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not? Definition of stealing “to take something which you have no right to have” The pharmacist really had no right to with hold the medicine only a want for more money and at that an exorbitant amount. The pharmacist was entitled to pay for services or goods within reason. Just pay for goods obtained or services rendered.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else? Above all protect LIFE.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do? Hopefully take the medicine. Pray.

6) What would Martin Luther King do? Hopefully, take the medicine. Pray.

7) Is sin really relative? Wisdom is knowing when something is really a sin and not just someone else’s interpretation of sin.


On a humorous note I asked my husband this question and he said it depends on who the dude is married to whether paying the money would be worth it or let her pass. His other answer was he would pay someone else $500 to take the medicine and pocket the rest to celebrate with his wife when she was well. Of course, he was just joking and we had a pretty funny and interesting conversation about the whole hypothetical scenario that usually it is just a trick to try to make a person look bad as there is sometimes no right answer. Anyway, enjoying reading the other responses

Hmm. Great thread OT.

Ok. Am I a moral person. Some ways yeah, some ways no.

Plenty of room for improvement. lol. It reminds of the moral situation when Jacob stole Esau's blessing.

I think we all agree that the druggist was in the wrong for obvious reasons.

Would it be justified. For some yes for others no. According to the Christian religion we are all justified by the blood of Christ.

Life does not trump everything else.

The good samaritan would have given her the cure.

Martin Luther King would have protested the druggist.

Sin would be relative for some but not others.


After all it was the Love of Money that escalated the situation in the first place.

S$F OT. Great thread...lol

reply to post by OldThinker


I remember this from my child psychology course a few years back. The only issue is that rather than testing your morality, the idea is that children in certain developmental stages will answer in a fashion concurrent with their development.

For instance, very young children are still under the pretense that you don't 'do' bad things because you will get in trouble, and they will almost always believe that it is wrong for the man to steal. They are not yet mentally developed enough to perceive why the man would or should steal to save his wife's life.

The same group a few months or years later (depending on age group, their current development, and a few usually will buck that trend leaning towards a younger or older age group) will answer differently according to their current ability to reason, and they consistently follow this age based development pattern.

All I am saying is that for this thread, the moral question is not to specifically show adults or anyone else if they are moral. It has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with the individual's or group's corresponding age based mentality.

Do you think someone behaves like a child? Give them this test and their initial reaction will give you a general level of their mental capacity.

This was developed by child psychologists, for child psychologists to determine a child's current state of mental development.

This is straight from the textbooks.



[edit on 23-10-2009 by GideonHM]

reply to post by GideonHM


Just out of curiosity, who told the first Homo Sapien what not to do because it was bad.

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by GideonHM

 

Just out of curiosity, who told the first Homo Sapien what not to do because it was bad.

Obviously other homosapiens with better technologies who wished to enslave those other 'lesser' homosapiens, who also just so happened to have a massive god complex.

What is the difference between a God and a being with all the powers of a god and a God complex?

Nothing at all.

Who's up for some ego boosting slave powered pyramid building? Any raised hands?

[edit on 23-10-2009 by GideonHM]

Originally posted by OldThinker
.. the original questions & dilemma ...

1) What would you do?
Steal the medicine, leave the money I offered in an envelope and an IOU for the rest. Get the drug administered, wait for police to pick me up. Plead "no contest", beg for mercy from the court and take my punishment standing up.

2) Why? Are you justified?
No, I am not. I am doing something wrong and I know it. I am willingly breaking the law and my own moral code to save a life. I feel justified that I deserve whatever punishment they choose to lay on me.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?
It would be if I was a Christian probably.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?
No. Too broad a question. Human life? No. My life and the lives of those I protect or am responsible for are more valuable than any others' lives. Life does not trump stealing either, but it can give reason for it, but still not an excuse.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?
Pony up the money (for a 3rd party) or perhaps offer a payment plan (as the seller). The Good Samaritan is already the person offering to buy the drug for his loved one, and willing to steal it.

6) What would Martin Luther King do?
Ask Martin Luther King

7) Is sin really relative?
First, define sin. second, it is relative in that not everyone has teh same sins in their ethical or moral makeup.

What I find most interesting in all of the replies I've seen is the apparent lack of any care for anyone but themselves, and even at times a complete disregard for the consequences of their actions. People seem like their naturally entitled to anything they feel they 'need'.

Perhaps I read too much into the story. The materials cost $200, and it sells for $2000.. but it is also said that the drug is expensive to make. also considering that the equipment needed to make it and all the personal investment in discovering the drug in the first place... yet it seems that so many feel that man deserves no right to be compensated for this. Some, it seems, that he should be dragged out into the street and shot (as most internet tough guys like to say) for the mere notion of such silliness.

Originally posted by Helmkat
....7) Is sin really relative?

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

Thx for your answer...

but in a world with all relativity, wouldn't Hitler have been RIGHT if he won? Help me there friend...

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


I'd steal it, but leave behind $200. That way the a-hole breaks even.

However, I wouldn't turn myself in. I would hire a lawyer and face the consequences of my crime ONLY IF/WHEN I get caught.

Medical treatment should be either free, or priced the same as the cost of producing/operating it.

I might not be 'absolutely' moral, but I am more moral than the guy overcharging for lifesaving medicine.

reply to post by sumgai


Absolutely, nice well thought out comment

OT

reply to post by CoffinFeeder


Thx coffinfeeder...

Very introspective post.

You have colored sides of the story that many posters missed...

Star for ya!

OT

Originally posted by GideonHM
....All I am saying is that for this thread, the moral question is not to specifically show adults or anyone else if they are moral. It has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with the individual's or group's corresponding age based mentality.

Do you think someone behaves like a child? Give them this test and their initial reaction will give you a general level of their mental capacity.

This was developed by child psychologists, for child psychologists to determine a child's current state of mental development.

This is straight from the textbooks. [edit on 23-10-2009 by GideonHM]

Yes Lawrence Kolberp was a behavior scientist...

But this level is not neccessarily age bound....this was not only for children...he contended many, most really, never make it past level 3 or 4...

OT

Piaget-Cognitive
Kolberg-Moral
Skinner Behavioral

These three were in no way limited to Child Pyschology...this is amatter or record my friend...

OT

Originally posted by berenike

....

What would Martin Luther King do?

I don't know, but I've read other people responses and I think I'd go along with the idea that he'd organise a rally or a protest or a fund-raiser.
.....

This is a consistent theme, kinda bothers me really...

He was so much more than being portrayed/remembered!

OT

reply to post by Conclusion


Conclusion, OT knows your off to ZZZZZZZ

but check this out tomorrow....

Kolberg's moral stages have been related to by James Fowler's stage of faith....

here's a brief overview...

Faith is seen as a holistic orientation, and is concerned with the individual's relatedness to the universal:

Stage 0 – "Primal or Undifferentiated" faith (birth to 2 years), is characterized by an early learning of the safety of their environment (ie. warm, safe and secure vs. hurt, neglect and abuse).
Stage 1 – "Intuitive-Projective" faith (ages of three to seven), is characterized by the psyche's unprotected exposure to the Unconscious.
Stage 2 – "Mythic-Literal" faith (mostly in school children), stage two persons have a strong belief in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities are almost always anthropomorphic.
Stage 3 – "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence) characterized by conformity
Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties) a stage of angst and struggle. The individual takes personal responsibility for their beliefs and feelings.
Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis) acknowledges paradox and transcendence relating reality behind the symbols of inherited systems
Stage 6 – "Universalizing" faith, or what some might call "enlightenment".

link: en.wikipedia.org...

Kohlberg's conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

more: debcross.wikispaces.com/file/.../Kolberg+-+Moral+Development.doc

1) What would you do?
I would take a .40 cal and put it to the pharmacists face and offer the pharmacist a choice, reduce the price to the 1000$ and be happy, or make no more on his discovery. Being a smart inventor I would think he would agree to the prudent choice.

2) Why? Are you justified?
To take no action is an action. By ignoring the plight of the sick, he is in fact dooming them to death over his own greed.

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not?
Stealing is the deprivation of someone the enjoyment of their goods. In this case we are simply "forcefully negotiating".

4) Does LIFE trump everything else?
Nature show us that only the fit survive. If the fit means leverage by force, then the fit still survive.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do?
Chip in the difference to make up the arbitrary selling price.

6) What would Martin Luther King do?
No idea, I'm Canadian.

7) Is sin really relative?
Yes, it is a sin to take no action when you can make a difference. If a woman is being raped, and you could stop it, but don't, then that is to me a sin. Even though you have broken no law. If you stand idly by as a person is beat to death, then you are as guilty as those doing the beating. To take no action IS an action. So Sin is relative. Even the police will beat you down to stop you from beating down a helpless person. It is not a sin to kill in war, but to kill for pleasure in war would be a sin.
I think Inherently we all know what we consider a sin, and what we do not. To each person they must answer to themselves. So sin must be relative to the tolerances of the person doing the judging.

..Ex

reply to post by OldThinker


True, true!

I am almost afraid of some things that could be posted here on that. Yet, I am pleasantly surprised at the thoughtfulness of many of these posts.

The test does seem to be working, and I was more so referring to an intended use, but if you can react to stimulus then you can certainly learn a good deal about yourself and others.