So how evolved are you?
 

I got the idea for this thread from a post of our glorious leader in response to something Radar said.


So where do you think you fit?

I think everyone should follow the same ethical practices (or their equiv.) all the time.

is this poll for the male of the species?

;)

"sex stages"?

I voted for interpersonal accord and conformity, for whatever its worth. Everyone is talking. But not everyone is voting...
Are these responses write-ins?

I want to know more about the sex stages.

I personally am at the "too much of a gray area to choose one" stage.

I have opposable thumbs

This thread reminds me of a book I once read, written in a language that I did not know.

If nobody looks at the Wikipedia entry I pointed to in the other thread, we can do this.

Please answer the following question, and give the reasoning behind your answer.

Good question.

No. Heinz had no right to break into the lab to steal the drug.

If I was in the same situation, I would steal the drug, but expect to face any consequences for doing so.

I forgot you asked for reasoning.

The druggist owns the drug. Heinz does not own the drug. To take the drug is stealing. Plain and simple. You have to have clear cut laws.

The druggist is a jerk for not providing it for a more reasonable price, and could quite possible be run out of town for being so selfish. There is some expectation from a human point of view that the druggist would provide the drug for a more reasonable price, but he shouldn't be required by law to do that.

~exactly~ what glatt said

Everything glatt said, plus more on this:

Heinz has every right to make the run-out-of-town threat real by explaining to everyone he knows how the druggist is refusing his (their loaned) money, and generally being a jerk.

Also, Heinz's punishment for the theft should fit the crime--since he's presumably already administered the drug and can't give it back, the punishment should be something along the lines of 'pay for it' (which Heinz already attempted to do, being willing to pay the other $1000 as soon as he could get it) and some additional deterrent, as determined to be appropriate by a jury of his peers (and not the druggist.) It goes without saying for me that the punishment should not be as bad as a dead wife.

I agree completely with Clodfobble. If Heinz tells the truth about the druggist, he's welcome to do all he wants to get a furor going.

So here's a question.

If the wife's problem happens to be contagious and becomes a widespread public health problem, would the government (or society) have a right to come in and take the drug and drug know-how from the druggist, pay him what it deems to be fair value, and distribute it to everyone that is sick?

this post reminds me of a song I heard earlier this morning, the title of which I do not know. yet.

Death Cab For Cutie I will possess your heart

This reminds me of a movie I once saw, "Love Story," written by Al Gore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlber...al_development

From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:

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.

Looking at the bigger picture, if the scientist isn't paid a sufficient amount for his work, he (or others) won't be inspired to develop other life-saving products and procedures (innovation will stop), and so there will be a net loss.

What about not stealing the medicine because he can't really help her if he's in prision. Then they're both doomed.

I would probably just make a huge stink and that's probably stage two?

couldn't he take his wife to the pharmacy and have her ingest the medicine there ...and stay there until she poops -is that stealing? It's still on the premises..... and if it works she could be used as an advertisement.....