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

1) What would you do? - Beg the druggist more. Make sure I can't get a loan or any money somewhere else. Even suggest a payment plan. When that fails... Steal medicine. Leave money and a signed note. He's not playing cat burglar, he's doing what is necessary to save a life.

2) Why? Are you justified? - who cares. If I'm playing the role of Heinz, I'll do everything I can that I feel is less valuable that my wife's life. I won't murder, maim, or torture. But if all that's physically standing in my way is a glass window, watch the freak out because I'm GOING IN!!!

3) Isn't stealing a sin? always? maybe not? - Sin is for religion. Believe it or not, you can separate religion and morality. If the question is "Is it immoral to steal?" I can work with that. Yes, it is. How can society function if your neighbors, acquaintances, co-workers, etc are all out to get you or your things? We're social animals. Stealing damages that social nature.

4) Does LIFE trump everything else? - Almost. It depends on the situation. In this one, the preservation of life certainly trumps greed, law, and morality.

5) What would the Good Samaritan do? - Ideally? If they can't flip the bill for the medicine, they should stay out of it. Adding more people but not changing the key facts doesn't change the situation. Heinz's wife is still dying and the druggist is still refusing to compromise. But hey, if they want to sign their names below Heinz's on the note, that's fine. And no... I really doubt a boycott would matter much.

6) What would Martin Luther King do? - Ask him. Without personally knowing the man for a long time, it's pretty difficult to guess that one.

7) Is sin really relative? - Again, religion oriented. Swapping sin with morality, I feel, wouldn't answer your question.



Alternatively, to my steal and leave money with a note suggestion... Heinz can (modified version of number 5) have as many people as he can sign below his name. Not as a threat to say "Don't even try to call the cops". But more, "We're sorry, but we have to support this." Nothing is stopping Heinz from making future payments.

Personally, I always place life above money. If you have to cause $10,000,000 in damages to save someone, but no one else gets hurt in the process, I say go for it. What I find to be the greatest immorality is putting a price tag on any persons life.

I once watched a UK theological debate, were clergy men were discussing if it was as sin to steal food from from a corporation owned supermarket, the outcome was that it was not a sin because a corporation was not person, so no sin would be committed.

But the OP mentioned a single pharmacist. I would take the medication and save a life. Would i feel like i committed a sin? Knowing that the pharmacist was being greedy and unreasonable probably not, although i would pay for damage to the property during the break in.

Originally posted by Cherryontop


.....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.

Interesting thought there...'prone to sin'

Can you elaborate some?

Thx! OT

reply to post by OldThinker


Sorry but I dont get what you are saying at all. Could you explain in lamens terms for me?? Also why did you single out my answer? Just curious..

Originally posted by OldThinker

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?

[edit on 22-10-2009 by OldThinker]

1) I would steal it

2) He wants to make money off it, well he would have made 800$ off that man, but it wasn't enough. In my opinion any sane person would be happy to barter and still turn a 400% profit, thus the man selling the drug, even aside from any considerations of his greed (another sin) would still have benefited from doing the transaction. I conclude then that the man was consumed with greed, and or not sane. However if confronted by the man, lets say he knew I stole it without a doubt, I would still offer him my original offer of 1000$, and at that point he would almost certainly take it.

3) Stealing is a sin when done for the wrong reasons. The wrong reasons are things such as greed, or because you like a pair of pants. The right reasons are because you require something and you cant obtain it otherwise, maybe you work 50 hours a week and still cant pay your bills, thus stealing food from where you work might be an acceptable practice to supplement your income. However, an honest person will not enjoy engaging in such things and will be looking for another job during this time so they can get out of this bad situation. I personally would feel no guilt for it though.

4) Life doesn't have to trump everything, but in the given scenario I think it did. We are also talking about the emotional pain of the husband and all others who loved this woman, that's a lot of pain. On the other hand the druggist would not experience pain of nearly this depth, perhaps annoyance or anger, but no long lasting, emotional trauma from losing some of this drug.

5) I think most good people would support this course of action, I can easily see many people in my life who are great people supporting me in such a cause if it came to it.

6) Dont know MLK very well, but I think he would value life and also take point on this mans greed for not accepting such a huge profit in the first place.

7) The highest philosophies regarding sin seem to indicate its relative. The fully developed human, who has a good sense of morality and ethics, takes everything on a situational basis. Only the insane stick to a single code of conduct regardless of the actual events that are transpiring. This insanity is often the sickness of all religions, who take a code of conduct and then refuse to use it on a situational basis. Thus they become extremists.

[edit on 2009/10/27 by Seventhdoor]

Originally posted by OldThinker

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

It is a horrible thought to contemplate but we all know "To the victor go the spoils".

Right and wrong are images trapped in each others reflection, one meaningless without the other and if never observed never manifest.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Sorry but I dont get what you are saying at all. Could you explain in lamens terms for me?? Also why did you single out my answer? Just curious..

Hi, could you reply to the post you are referring to, and hit QUOTE, so I can see the earlier comment....my memory is not what it used to be, sorry.

OT

Originally posted by Seventhdoor
.....7) The highest philosophies regarding sin seem to indicate its relative. The fully developed human, who has a good sense of morality and ethics, takes everything on a situational basis. Only the insane stick to a single code of conduct regardless of the actual events that are transpiring. This insanity is often the sickness of all religions, who take a code of conduct and then refuse to use it on a situational basis. Thus they become extremists.

[edit on 2009/10/27 by Seventhdoor]

I think there is SOME validity in your quote, not always, but generally I'm with you...Thx!

OT

What is morality? When we let our virtues become our vice we are equally unbalanced.
As I am not in the situation I can not respond to it. To say we would do thus or such is false as known of us can truly know what we would do until we are there. As our consciousness is always evolving as we grow and encounter the world around us as well as our own internal beliefs.

Every time I read my bible, I learn something new and find deeper and deeper meanings, thus I am evolving in consciousness.

Of course if we took Jesus at his words we would know there is no disease in God thus there can be none in His creation. He told us to heal the sick, not treat it with drugs. So if we had the faith of God we would not ever be in the sistuation to begin with.

Greater is he who never has trouble then he who must get out of trouble.

On the other hand as all things belong to God and all is God, from whom are you stealing? IF you are the children of God, and it is His good pleasure to give you the Kingdom, then you can not be stealing.

The Bible is written about the soul and Spirit and the meanings need be pushed to the ultimate levels. We have the power of God within us and the intelligence of God, yet we live as blind mice and repeat words withpout understanding their deepest meanings and the truth inherent within us.

No proof that the drug would work.
It is a dangling carrot.

If you broke into lab, you might get the wrong thing.

Since you don't know the details of how the drug should be used...you could end up using it innocrectly and kill your loved one by not using proper protocol or having proper instructions for usage. Not to mention that you may accidently pick up the wrong thing during the theft.

There is no record to show that this drug actually works. It could just be another charlatan with a false claim.

I would forget him and go on to someone else who has idea for a cure possibility and who might be willing to share the information with a more generous attitude.

I think anyone who is stingy and greedy will eventually reap what they sow.

Steal it, and maybe even punch the pharmacist in the face for being such a tw%t