Lawrence Kohlberg: classic moral problem

[JPINFV]

I definately agree that if the use of non-prescription drugs causes a public disturbance, that the act of creating such disturbance should be outlawed (i.e. 'drunk in public')

 

[mycrofft]

When you ask me to help cover up your malfeasance, you do me a tort.

Oh, you get the radium any way you can then turn yourself in. Call Channel Three on the way in though. And Oprah. And EMTLIFE.

 

[JeffDHMC]

Get the drug, by hook or by crook.

Toss the weed.

 

[Jeffrey_169]

Heinz’s wife has a rare form of cancer that cannot be cured with currently available drugs and therapies. But there is one drug that physicians think might save Heinz’s wife. It is a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug is expensive to make, but the druggist is charging 10 times what the drug cost him to make it. He pays $200 for the radium and charges $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. Heinz goes to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could raise only $1,000, which is half the amount asked by the druggist. Heinz goes to the druggist and tells him that his wife is dying and asks him to sell the drug cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist says, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” What should Heinz do?

*please formulate an answer based on your own morals, values, and ethics

To be honest and frank, I would do whatever I had to. Let me put it this way; worst case I would have to repent and leave the country, fleeing to a non extradition nation, best case I would get the money one way or another. I know it isn't right, and I know I would pay I the end, but my wife is the only family (besides my children) I have.

On a more objective note, I am all for capitalism; however I believe no one has the right to withhold life saving treatment from another.

I realize this post is a contradiction, and so defines the way I feel about it.