pull down to refresh
Sure, so lets see where you stand.
"Heinz Steals the Drug." In this scenario, a woman has cancer and her doctors believe only one drug might save her. This drug had been discovered by a local pharmacist and he was able to make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose. The woman's husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to buy the drug.
He tried to negotiate with the pharmacist for a lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over time. But the pharmacist refused to sell it for any less or to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz instead broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife. Should the husband have done that? Yes or no and explain your reasoning for why in depth.
Could the pharmacist have sold the drug to someone else for his asking price? Why wasn't anyone else willing to loan or donate money to the husband to save the woman's life? Did the woman or man have a reputation in the community of bad faith? This is likely given the husband's willingness to take by force what was not his.
Adjusted for inflation from the time this scenerio was written, its more like $5,146.06 but he was able to raise half of the amount. Heinz would not have a reputation of stealing. The scenerio assumes Heinz steals the drug out of desperation and shows this through showing all the other ways he tried before resorting to what the scenerio presents as an extreme for Heinz.
Could the pharmacist have sold the drug to someone else for the asking price? This is possible as prices are made based off of what someone thinks they can get for a product. Its pure speculation to say one way or another though. We do know that he could make another bottle or what have you of the drug for $200 though. ($514.61 adjusted for inflation)
To claim the pills can be made for $200 is a red herring. That's like saying you should only pay your doctor $1.00/hr because that's all he needs for food and water to survive long enough to perform your service. The incremental cost isn't the same as the accrued capital cost such as education, equipment, facilities, and accepted risk. The $1800 margin would go toward this speculative investment and liened assets. Perhaps the pharmacist wouldn't have invented the cure without knowing he could have charged $2000 for it. If the pharmacist let the man have the medication he wouldn't be still turning a $800 long-term profit, he would have been engaging in charity. Let's say the pharmacist didn't believe the man's wife was a worthy charity. Let's say the pharmacist couldn't afford to let it go for a lower price since that would lower the marketability of the product at the full price. Without property rights, which is what you are calling into question, the pharmacist wouldn't have engaged in the research activity in the first place. If the pharmacist knew anyone with a "good reason" would have the right to steal from him because he wasn't willing to lower his price, this eliminates the pharmacist's ability to negotiate the price he is or was willing to accept for the medication.
:)
I get a lot very strong opinions when presenting this scenerio. Some people say yes very strongly, some people say no very strongly, but its the reasoning behind the answer that's most interesting.
Lawrence Kohlberg was an American psychologist who used this and other moral dilemmas to study moral reasoning as people got older.
https://cdn.cleverism.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/kohlberg.png
You may find this article https://www.verywellmind.com/kohlbergs-theory-of-moral-development-2795071 of interest.
To answer the question of if the 51% should be sacrificed for the 49%, the current conclusion of the study is that older people reason that there should be a balance between society and the individual. The 1% should not be sacrificed for the 99% because morality is not a numbers game.
This is indeed interesting. Capitalism is a fundamentally moral activity. Money is a store of value, and value is an expression of property rights.
Property rights are founded on the right to control ones own body and to possess or trade the fruits thereof
Let's explore some philosophy!