We made a book! The Unschooler’s Educational Dictionary. www.amazon.com/Unschoolers-Educational-Dictionary-Lighthearted-Curriculum-Free/dp/168481359X/ Secure your copy to discover a world beyond traditional schooling, revolutionize your understanding of education, and empower your approach to parenting and teaching. #unschooling
1- Avoiding Punishment 2- Seeking interest 3- Societal conformity 4- Maintaining the social order 5- Social contract 6- Ethics are paramount, and laws change to serve it.
My answer to the question at the end: Breaking the law to save a life is justified, and almost any judge would dismiss the case for extenuating circumstances. But even if that were not the case, if the man could have saved his wife's life, or a complete stranger, it would still be a noble act for him to be willing to go to jail for stealing the drug, putting others' needs above his own. As for the pharmacist, I wouldn't send him to jail either. While I do believe that he has a MORAL obligation to help the man's wife (if not by giving the drug freely or at a reduced price, then at least agreeing to some kind of installment plan), he doesn't have any LEGAL obligation to help her. It's just like if I see someone drowning, I'm morally obligated to do save them, but not legally obligated. It's not the job of the police to force us to be good people, just to prevent us from directly infringing upon each others' freedoms. So for that reason, the pharmacist shouldn't be arrested, but should be held accountable in other ways, such as future customers taking their business elsewhere.
Both should be arrested, one is for missing the aid on is for breaking in. If you reach just the 2nd logical step, you will see both actions are illegal. I mean if you are able to preserve a life but you miss it you are a crimer too. Lawn dont argue about economical transactions, so its irrelevant, only can shrink down the quality of punishment. That question is more on logics for me. Well maybe save ur wife also can shrink it, maybe save a strange man not much. It is not my mistake that the question itself is based in an one-step logical system.
The sad thing is that society poses this dilemma all too often, but when compassion is practiced by all, both sides are served. Might our moral obligation then be to alter society's view of what is legal? Laws are not always ethical or moral.
"It's not the job of the police to force us to be good people, just to prevent us from directly infringing upon each others' freedoms." Very well said!
I’m 26 , it took me 26 almost 27 years to understand this. As an adolescent child I knew helping others being bullied was right, as a teen I would question every rule my religious conservative family had. Disagree with most agreeing with very little. Now as an adult I understand we are all different and see life through different eyes and experiences , compassion and understanding is the core of justice and to understand your fellow human as a human is what will stop you from inflicting more pain on the world.
lived the same life lol.. i had a friend he was 2.2meters.. i would just tell him to take care of the bullies.. many kids tolt us they where very happy with us.. we told them. if it happens again tell us. if i founded out they used us to bully instead of help.. we stoped "helping" them.. teachers left us alone.. walked away or looked away. we just bully them.. name caling. taking there school bag, trowing stuff. making the big buys beg us to stop. if it got pyshical. he would pick them up by there underware. funny fact. bullies hate it when they get bullied. and they dont need much to stop..
laws were created to be safezones, not the cages they are today(I.E. speeding, on the average day you should be driving at a normal speed for the safety of you and others, on other days, where you have to get to the hospital for an absolute emergency, it is within reason that you'd go faster to survive)
In response to the moral dilemma at the end, I would suggest trying another pharmacy. UPDATE Many people have pointed out that the dilemma said the drug was not available elsewhere. I missed that at first. However, that is because the dilemma is now completely implausible and unrealistic. Drug stores do not make unique pharmaceuticals. I thought of other bizarre aspects of the scenario too. It is not usable today. Perhaps more important, this experience underlines how far we usually go to avoid getting boxed into dilemmas like this.
@@jh4766 Ah yes. I got a bit confused because in this story the 'druggist' (i.e. the pharmacy store) is the one that makes the drug, not a pharmaceutical company with the resources to research, test, and get approval for the drug. This unrealistic element passed me by on viewing the first time.
@@matthewleitch1 It was a _realistic_ element when the dilemma was first proposed. The FDA wasn't around to -protect incumbents- promote drug safety at the time.
@@jarrod752 The more I think about the story the more I find the whole thing bizarre and implausible. Why would you be desperate to buy a drug that has been created in a way that provides no reasonable assurance that the drug will be effective? If the drug is being sold by someone who just wants to make money from it, then why won't they sell it to a customer who is offering all he has? I realise it's difficult to construct these moral dilemmas without this sort of problem.
Then again your daughter is going to a psychologist. Psychologists are simply lay clergymen. Most of them have received "help" at some time too. Nothing wrong with that. Converted sinners make the best saints.
I remember being bullied and not being able to fight back because I was taught violence is bad and didn't want to be punished or didn't want my mother to know me beating up someone :(
This is common western braingwashing. To conform and to never hurt someone. Next time beat the shit out of them back, or get yourself some pepper spray. Do not conform to society. Society is always wrong because we are run by filthy governments and companies
@@willleslie2745 we should avoid violence as much as possible, but when forced, when we need to defend ourselves or someone else and there is no other choice, then it's the right thing to do, like Michael Jackson said "just beat it"
It's a rule-of-law test. The scenario (at the end of the video, btw) provides a set moral questions that suggest (imply, whatever) that a system of rules cannot always provide a moral (principled, whatever) outcome to every interpersonal conflict in a society, which is true (btw). The answer you give to these questions is going to reflect your personal values. Obviously, you (or, any given person) want to respect the law. However, if the rules of law, which is simple system of rules trying to resolve a complex set of circumstances that occur in your (or, any given) society, fail to provide a moral or principled outcome in a given scenario, the correct thing to do is reevaluate the law, or the application of the law, and make corrections or realignments so that the desired outcome occurs. Of course, not everyone will have the same desired outcome. So, if a person ranks their principals so that the preservation of life supersedes the protection of property (perhaps in every situation, but not necessarily), they'll find a way to justify taking the drug away from the pharmacist (by whatever means) and saving Mrs. Heinz (who should have a enough money to buy the drug in the first place because they sure seem to sell a lot of ketchup, but whatever). Regardless of how you answer these questions, if the answers you give result in the preservation of life over property, then you obviously value life over property (or the concept of personal property). Which, I suppose, is the point of the questions. You can make more of a drug, and you can resolve a personal property dispute after the fact with some sort of just outcome, but you cannot restore a life lost to decision based on a set of rules that fail to resolve a complex scenario unforeseen by the author(s) of the rules. If you don't have confidence in the answers you give these questions (which I expect is pretty common), it's probably because you are having a hard time resolving the conflict between your principals; respect for an individual's choice of how they conduct their business and deal with their property (the pharmacist), or the preservation of one person's life over the liberty of another's. Some would find this an easy choice, and some would not. Also, the amount of time you have to think about your answers and/or your values may matter. So, if you read this far, maybe you want my answer. I have to assume that Mrs. Heinz (or whoever) has a fixed amount of time to live and that immediate action is the only way to save her (or them: I think they made that clear in the video, but a time constraint is an important condition that has to be true, so I want to state my assumption here). Also, I'm assuming the pharmacist actually made the drug and is not just selling someone else's product. This matters to the question of the pharmacist's actions and responsibilities. The answer (based on my values) is to steal the drug, save the wife (or even a stranger), turn myself (Mr. Heinz) in to the authorities, and deal the consequences, which include paying for the drug after the fact. In case you're thinking it, yes, I'm aware that someone, somewhere, is probably dying of a treatable medical condition right now. The context of this story is what I'm talking about here, so, no, I'm not going to go hunt for a situation so I can rob a pharmacist and save someone's life. I'm just responding to the situation given, and, yes, I'm going to have a different answer for a different situation. Whatever choice I make in any given situation is personal and does not act as a baseline for my opinion of what others choose to do (the pharmacist, for instance). That said, it's absurd (and immoral) to withhold a replicable drug in a situation where a life can be saved and compensation can be resolved later. But, as we all know, this does happen. If I were the pharmacist, I would probably have a different business model that wouldn't result in the situation given. I'd probably not be in business for very long either. However, I do not believe the pharmacist in the above scenario is a murderer for withholding a drug that he can make but demands compensation for. Regardless of how you change the scenario, I'm going to put the value of life over the certain liberties of an individual because that's how I rank my values. Different scenarios will yield different variations on the same theme or outcome, but my values will always place the the right of an individual in immediate peril to live or survive over the right of another individual to retain or acquire wealth at the expense of another. So, it doesn't matter how you change the scenario, how I change my answer will be based on these values. tl;dr: of course I'd steal the drug, it wouldn't matter if I loved my wife, It wouldn't matter if it was a stranger, and I don't think the pharmacist should be charged with murder.
You forget an important thing! The ought of Hippocrates, he is bound to it, in this case the pharmacist. So yes he has to endure the consequences. Your text is instructif and mostly subjectif. internal motivations does play here; I wrote - I think before turning a burglar I should follow the moral path , if and only if time does mattes, than still I would do the moral path (shortcut) and go right afterward the burglar path. Leaving money, and turn myself in. Greetings.
The husband is legally unjustified but morally justified. He committed the act of theft but rescued his dying wife. The pharmacist is the opposite; he is legally justified and morally unjustified. He cannot be forced to sell his product cheaper, but he could’ve set up a payment plan to make it affordable. I feel like the best solution is to have the government negotiate drug prices to make it affordable. No single individual can change anything, but collectively our voices for better healthcare will be heard. ⚕️My stage is 5: Social Contract. The laws should be enforced, but I understand laws can be poorly designed. Getting politically involved and advocating your rights is the best pathway forward.
I agree something must be done. But doing the same thing that has had disastrous results when done in the past is probably not the way to go. Government setting prices has failed time and time again in many other areas. I know you said negotiate, but the government rarely negotiates when it has the power to simply dictate. Alternatively allowing the industry to help draft regulation doesn't work well either. That is how the US went from over 2 dozen car makers in the early 20th century to just 3 in the mid 20th century. Those 3 helped draft the regulation. I don't know if this has been tried before, but what if instead of giving a pharmaceutical company inside our borders exclusivity, we expand it to those outside our country can get approval as well. Broadening the market. As I understand it right now foreign pharmaceutical companies can import drugs into the US on a case by case basis if they have no part of their company here. Meaning that a citizen can order a medication from outside the US only so long as the drug in question is not made here. But as soon as a company here in the US begins making that drug, citizens are not allowed to get that drug from the foreign companies that have had mass production, and thus a lower price; and must instead begin buying the drug from the US company at whatever price the US company sets. I remember hearing about a case about 5 to 8 years ago about this. And I think the FDA still has it this way. How it works as I understand it is if you have a condition and require a drug that is not available in the US and doesn't have FDA approval you can get special dispensation thru the FDA to purchase the drug abroad. Until a US company gets approved by the FDA to manufacture that medicine and the FDA cancels your special dispensation. www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/?sh=71f5805b1a71 I know the data is a little old, but I think it hasn't changed that much in the last decade. Without large profits, interest in researching and developing new drugs would dry up. And as the graph shows 40% of all the new research in the world is done by the US. For that to take a significant hit I fear in our drive to reap the benefits we accidently kill the goose laying the golden eggs. I know the extortion rates of some medications are going to hurt some people. I just don't want our desire to save a few end up killing the many of the future.
@@davidtherwhanger6795 Government has a lengthy history of negotiating outcomes over dictating them when their resolution is a national concern (strikes are an example), though there is certainly some guaranteed dictation, especially when regulations have been broken (at least there should be; assuming enforcement). Also, what you mentioned about the FDA sounds like protectionism. Which is surprising since I feel most would say the U.S has committed itself to the principles of free trade and economic liberalization since the federal income tax (to which middle class Americans actually contribute more) and WW2.
Two things I want to add. One, to be careful of pit traps. Someone at moral development stage 1 and someone at moral development stage 3 shows the same reaction to what happened. It's good to carefully think things through. Two, it *seems* that the more morally developed someone is, the less they *seem* to respect the rules. Disobedience to rules does not immediately indicate moral development. Rules are needed as a vague guideline. A sign of moral development is how you could consider every factor without bias to concoct a solution that fits the situation. Basically not every solution fits every problem and never think that if you seem like the most morally developed person, no other opinion should be heard except yours.
Exactly right. If you think Stage 6 is about living irrespective of all rules then you're mistaken. It's simply stating that moral ethics should be the foundation of laws. And when rules and morally ethical practice clash, what is morally right should supersede what is legal. But it does not mean all rules and laws are null
A good test for discerning the latter point, in my opinion, is to ask somebody to state in general terms what moral weighting goes into the decision of whether or not to break a rule. There is not necessarily a "right" answer here, what's important is that the answer is sound and principled. A neoliberal (using the philosophical definition) may argue only certain unjust rules may be morally broken, since a general agreement to follow rules you believe are wrong but not egregiously so is necessary for those rules to actually inform and control action. Staunch Millsian Libertarians meanwhile may believe it is always morally justifiable to violate rules when there is no possibility that unconsenting others would be harmed in the process, out of placing paramount value on freedom of the self. As you said, having a complex understanding of morality that recognizes laws as being approximations of and in service to ethics is quite distinguishable from the egoist disposition to merely ignore laws altogether.
This is the first time I've heard about these stages of moral development and the Heinz Dilemma. As I was watching the video I noticed that I was repulsed by the pharmacist's unwillingness to help the Heinz's dying wife. Heinz breaking into the pharmacy to steal the drug to save his wife was admirable. I think his actions were justified considering he was saving his wife's life. I also think the situation changes depending on whether the sick person was his wife or a stranger, though it shouldn't really. I think that a life is a life and how do we measure the value of a life compared to that of another? Here's a question, though: how would the situation change if the wife's condition was such that giving her the drug would save her life but only prolong her pain and suffering? Then, perhaps, the pharmacist wouldn't be such a bad guy in the story. Do I think pharmacists should be arrested for selling life-saving drugs at 10x the manufacturing price? Hell yes.
I only disagree with your last answer, the police's job is to promote freedom by stopping bad deeds, not forcing good ones. The pharmacist only has a moral obligation to help her, and should be held accountable in a different ways, like letting all of his customers know about his deed.
What if the pharmacist is charging 10x because the medicine is rarely demanded and most of his stock will expire ? it is mentioned that he is selling 10x manufacture cost so this question is not as straight forward as it sounds
The Big Pharma is doing exactly that! There should be awareness amongst people and resistance, so the poor husband shouldn't be driven to steal 😕 in the first place.
Heinz's action of stealing is justifiable since the pharmacist prays on the helplessness of the patients they know would need such medicine, leaving Heinz only one option to take if he wants to save his wife. Should Heinz not love his wife or if it were to be a stranger then he wouldn't take such a risk, and I see nothing wrong with it. All lives are equal but our senses of value are not. Gold is precious, but why? To us normal people it is because there's a huge demand for gold and we can sell them for cash. To the richer class, it is because they believed gold is a luxurious good that is suitable to show their wealth. To scientists, it is because of its incredibly useful properties. If there's no demand for gold, we will just view them as shiny pieces of metal, no more valuable than rocks. If gold is not viewed as valuable, they mean nothing to the richer class since they can't flex their wealth with it. Should there is no such need for gold in the electronic field, scientists will simply ignore them. It all comes down to how we feel and what we can get out of them. Between a stranger and his wife whom he loved so dearly, the stranger is obviously not of the same value to Heinz. Now, about the pharmacist, do I think he should be arrested? Well, that depends. He is for sure not a kind person, but evil? Not necessary. He simply aims for the profit he can make and even though disregards others in the process, his aim is not to bring harm to anyone. What I do believe though, is that such action should be illegal, but if it's not, there's no real reason to arrest him for the law does not require him to be compassionate toward others and he has done nothing wrong. My view on this will not change even if the medicine will only prolong the wife's suffering for the pharmacist doesn't take that into account at all but simply thinks about the profit.
The first scenario of the children fighting occurred when I was in 3rd grade. Two larger kids were viciously beating a smaller one, lying on the ground bloodied and screaming. I was horrified and wanted to stop the attack. The large crowd of other kids, however, were cheering and encouraging the attackers, like some kind of mob excited with blood lust. Where would their behavior fall on this spectrum? I felt helpless to do anything, and being a child could think of nothing, so I moved along home and told my mom. We got in the car and drove back by where it had happened, but it was all over by then. I learned everything I ever needed to know about human nature on that day.
A mixture of Stage 2 (self interest)- encourage the bullies so they understand that you are on their side and Stage 3 (conformity)- one person cheers so another joins in, starting a snowball effect
My initial thoughts on the questions at the end are: 1) No, he shouldn’t have broken in and stolen the medicine, because getting caught would make a bad situation even worse. And also it’s a blessing that a drug even exists that can save his wife’s life. The fact that it would benefit his wife doesn’t give him the right to steal it. And he’s not considering the cost on the pharmacist to repair any damage from the break-in. However if he got caught, considering the circumstances, I would believe he shouldn’t be charged, but let off with a warning and only charged if he breaks in again. 2) If he doesn’t love his wife then his reasons for stealing the drug are no longer obvious to me and I’d want to know why he stole it. Perhaps he’s just stealing it because he believes it’s the right thing to do, even though he’s not gaining anything personally from his wife recovering. But him stealing it even though he doesn’t love his wife doesn’t make it more or less morally acceptable to me. 3) If he was doing it for a random stranger it still doesn’t make it more or less morally acceptable to me. Again, I would wonder what his reasons were though. 4) No, the pharmacist shouldn’t be charged with murder as I’m assuming his motive for not giving the drug was because he wasn’t being paid his asking price. Not because he wanted the man’s wife to die, even if he knew that giving him the drug at half price would save her life. Unless it could be proven beyond resonable doubt that the reason he didn’t give Heinz the drug was because he knew Heinz’ wife would die and he wanted her dead. Although I don’t know what he should be charged with if that was the case. However, I think the pharmacist should seek to have an understanding of the significance of what his drug can mean to people and that lives can be saved or lost as a result of taking or not taking the drug. And he should put measures in place that help him stay profitable while being able to help the poor have access to his drug.
Laws have been invented to enforce limits on behavior, primarily force and deceit, which can destroy relationships. The man faces a dilemma between two evils, letting his wife die and breaking a law that prohibits a behavior that, if it became generalized, could destroy society. Of course, he isn't thinking about that, not with his wife dying. It is we, as citizens, who must think about that. How far are we willing to allow the law to be flouted? If society collapsed, many people would suffer from the effects of looting, violence, and a lack of production of those things we need to live better lives. The only place that we are all forced to think seriously about these issues is a jury. But, when we let busy judges do all the work, we, as a population, do not develop the moral sense an advanced society needs in order to function ethically. Then, judges, who don't necessarily have a higher moral sense than the ordinary citizen, can start making decisions that society in general does not agree with, creating rifts between the law and a large sector of the general population. It's hard for us as individuals to judge at what moral level we are at. Our self interest and fears make our moral sense shift, depending on different circumstances, especially emotional ones. That's why an impartial jury is so important to keeping the use of public power ethical.
Yes. This is the best we can do at our current development. But if we lived in Cuba or someplace that provides healthcare as a right and has prescriptions included, then this man would not have this dilemma. There are levels above those mentioned here. Without the Tao Kindness and compassion Are replaced by law and justice Faith and trust are supplanted By ritual and ceremony ✌️❤️🕉
@@Spiral.Dynamics Have you lived in Cuba? Somewhere that isn't a reward for loyalty to the party that now funds itself with casinos and prostitution for those visitors who believe it's a worker's paradise, that ruthlessly represses opposition and makes sure everyone stays in the place designated by the party elites? When you do, come tell us about how much kindness and compassion there really is there. I can assure you that more kindness and compassion exists where it isn't part of the same body in society that relies on the threat of a gun to get its job done.
Karen Ness You’re splitting hairs here. Ok.,so a person who lives 10,000 years ago in a village where there is no money and healing is included. Life is not a zero-sum game. Someone who lives in Cuba is free from the dilemma presented here. They may have other dilemmas that you think that you are free of.
@@Spiral.Dynamics The video is about moral development. I originally made the point that we need laws that sometimes come into conflict with other values and that it's in a jury where we should resolve those life and death conflicts and the only place we can, as a people raise our, or, if you will, raise the average moral sense. Point being that if we relegate the job to judges, we don't develop the moral sense we need collectively as a populous and advanced society where new medicines to treat rarer diseases can be researched and developed. You brought in Cuba and now some ancient mythical time we know little about where there is little evidence of well-being, but where we know that old age was nowhere near egalitarian. If they survived beyond the age of three, they were probably quite hardy, but, on average, still didn't live very long. You are right, neither in Cuba or 10,000 years ago is stealing medicine a dilemma. Such a rare medicine would probably not be available for anyone but the elite in Cuba (they probably fly to Miami to be treated) and 10,000 years ago the only medicine available didn't take the average person much beyond 25 years of age, assuming such knowledge was generalized or freely shared by those who had it. No pharmacies available to the public, no dilemma there. Resolving dilemmas effectively often means splitting hairs, not wildly swinging the axe of wishful thinking. (Forgive my intellectual brutality. ) Every time and place has its advantages and disadvantages, every person's perspective has its advantages and disadvantages. Though the rules must to be black and white, (they need to be clear if they're to be of any use as guides to our behavior,) life isn't black and white, but the grays most certainly are about splitting hairs and that is a serious job we should all engage in as often as we are able to, precisely to develop our moral sense, not make glib comments we don't think through carefully before throwing them out. (If I could give your feelings some anesthesia to help you analyze these ideas carefully, I would, but unfortunately the only way to exercise our moral muscles is to learn to tolerate discomfort and sometimes even pain. Cuba and any glib talk about socialism is painful to me because we lost two uncles in the family to violence by adherents of the doctrine. Not something I can be glib about.) Live long and prosper.
1 - Stealing when it is life itself that is at stake is justified as an emergency right. It's the same principles that a state would follow if a starving person broke into a mall in the middle of nowhere in order to feed himself. A society cannot rationally expect people to substitute survival, a natural high imperative with secondary legal regulations, so the way it is normally dealt with is that the person is indeed liable for the economic damages of their action and can expect to have to re-compensate in that field, but he should not expect a criminal charge at the end of it, though the price hike may or may not feature in that settlement. 2 - In good and bad days, in sickness and in health is my own take on it. It changes quite little unless the degrees and justifications reach a certain absurd point. Otherwise, there will be an established expectation of care. Same concept if one encounters a baby in the cold woods that is clearly abandoned. Leaving it to perish from exposure would constitute a criminal lack of care and it would matter quite little if one really hates babies. On the moral front, I suppose showing love to those one hate is a strong quality even if unnatural. 3 - Much from the above follows, though here there can also be justification of distance. I might see a report over a starving Sudanese village, I might have the means and the ability to change something about it, but still elect other priorities even if blatantly lesser and that would not be in and of itself criminal. If it is a random person in the street dying then yes you are required to at the bare minimum get them help. If it is a random person laying in your own bed? The same and you should probably some divorce paper with that. 4 - Secondary factors can be key there. Firstly what the law is. Secondly why were the prices hiked? Was it due to a lawful increase from the board or was it due to the salesman's personal dislike of the customer or his wife. Or perhaps something external like realities of inflation. Did the person have any belief that this customer was telling the truth or attempting to scam? Normally, it would not make it to court unless some circumstances are quite damning, not would there be reason to make an arrest there or then unless again the circumstances are entirely unlawful, which is different than immoral. Murder would barring extreme circumstances not be on the table as that involves taking life more than it involves letting die, or absence of care, unless the intent was personal and the price hike artificial there would be nothing justifying an attempted murder charge. Chances are regulations would probably be the natural way to handle such.
I love content like this where we are presented with different social theories or experiments. Love Sprouts for doing this. I am thankful to you that I am finally discovering content that I love.
Hi Krithik Vakil thank you so much for the encouraging comment. It really means a lot to us! If you do like our videos and want to support us in making more, you can subscribe to our channel or consider becoming our Patron at www.patreon.com/sprouts
Steal the drug, cure the wife, turn yourself into the police. A jury would then be the judge of the situation, and hopefully the pharmacist would be punished for price gouging and putting human lives at risk. A pharmacist, as part of the medical community, is still bound by the Hippocratic oath, which he is in violation of in this scenario.
The husband could have offered other ways to offset the price, work for the pharmacist or offer him a service, ask for credit instead of discount. It may or may not have been accepted, but he chose theft which was not his only option.
@@myloohagan5686 I'm afraid that many poor people don't even have credit and although such people work hard, individuals like the pharmacist don't actually keep their word. Let's not forget that we live in a sick society, where many diligent honest people are exploited by others. People will do anything for money. They even kill their peers for it.
@@georgianagheorghe8848 I'm poor, I can't get credit, I work hard. I don't remember any promises given or implied to me by any pharmacist ever. How can a society be sick? It is dynamic and as versatile as the individuals that create it from day to day. People need money, that is undeniable, in fact I have dressed up in a bio suit and hosed down tons of human shite just to get money. I've plundered dumps and refuse to get money. If I fail to make money my family suffer and starve to death and it is my fault. If the pharmacist fails to cut his profit and my wife dies as a result it's his fault?
The pharmacists is not doing price gouging. The politicians and pharma companies are. But you just don’t see them. The pharmacist’s wife is also sick at home and dying. He needs to make enough money to buy the same medicine for HIS wife. If HE sells the magical medicine to the man, he (the pharmacist) looses 50% and then the pharmacist will not be able to afford the money to buy the drug for HIS own wife and SHE will die!!!
@@Kittyququmber ugh.... there comes a point in time where you have to step in and help. Pharmacists make a LOT of money, please don't make excuses for a heartless Pharmacist
Our morals develop all throughout our lifetime. True that the stages especially the last one may not always be completed. Most of the time too, we find ourselves going back and forth through the stages. It's the sign that we have not really firmly grasp the stages that we must have completed and the element of Choice and Values would always come into play. 😇🤓🤩 Thank you for sharing.😇😁🤓
There is social conformity, when an asshole put you "sticks in the road/way of development" whitout reason and only for personal use. There is no respect for a bunch of criminals who break laws, and hypocrites which goes to represent a cause , and start lieing and twisting the reality. It is a paranoid, delayed there in top-than they should be removed. Becauze that is what they have learned and apply laws. Pieces of shit, I have no idea how they even belive that someone will ever give them attention. I have never experienced in my life-that I am attracted by assholes!
I believe all human beings have a right to make a demand on the compassion of human society for a relief of suffering. But human society is nowhere near that place where all people receive empathy and compassion equally. So I wonder to whom exactly are we supposed to submit justification to for such a belief.
Given the situation I'd say that although his intentions were good, his means of getting the medicine is obviously wrong. But then when we weigh things out there are much more good that's happening. For stealing he gets to cure his wife and he might go to jail (its up to a competent judge) but I guess he wont even regret it knowing he saved her life. It's still a better choice if there is no other choice.
I personaly think it quite weak. Laws are built upon the ethics of a society; thus, by putting the lawful person on another level than the ethical principles, he principally misunderstood society. We don`t just write laws without thinking about it, we think about what is right and create or change law to reflect our beliefs. Thus, the lawful person would be the person who acts upon the ethics of the society he lives in, while stage five and six live by their person ethics.
my parents were overprotective and this video helped me find a good description of some of the effects - i'm still stuck in the first phase of moral development
This theory is just an opinion that has not been proven using any scientific method. Morals and ethics are completely subjective and don't follow any development scale.
1. Obedience and punishment 2. self interest 3. Interpersonal accord and comformity(gaya gaya nalang) 4. Value authority and maintaining social order 5. Social contract ( if they deserve it they deserve 6. Universal Ethical principles Abstract ethical principles that serves understanding of justice Pre conventional - driven by fear and self interest, not by social norms Conventional - responds to peeer pressure and teacher follows rules, about society whats right. Rules are questioned Post conventional - understanding that one may disobey rules due to morality
1. Hines did the right thing by stealing the drug. Even though it is illegal, and likely to result in punishment, it is the only way he can save his wife's life. 2. It wouldn't matter if he didn't love his wife, although he might be less likely to risk punishment if that is the case. Stealing the drug is still the right thing to do. 3. If it is a stranger, Hines might be more likely to consider it someone else's problem, and decide not to risk going to jail to save someone he doesn't know. No one would blame him for feeling this way. But if he chose to commit a crime to save the life of a stranger, he would be morally justified. 4. The druggist should not go to prison if the wife dies, though I would hope he would be wracked with guilt for the rest of his life.
David Roddick: The questions weren't designed to establish "right or wrong". People at a level 4 aren't going to agree with level 5 positions... they don't perceive them. They are into self-interest.
David, I think you hit the nail on the head here. A lot of people won't like it, but I fully believe this is stage 6 thinking. I formulated my answers similarly before I read yours.
Had a childhood friend who did jail time because her mom needed expensive treatment for cancer. She ran a travel agency and stole from her customers to pay for it, her reasons didn't matter. She went to jail and of course her mom died soon after without her caregiver. So damn sad!
Yes, the state of Michigan. She was always such a sweet soul, but the state puts money above people, unfortunately. Watching a parent die can be unbearable. I feel so bad for her.
It all depends on the decision the person makes and the situation he is in. Many rules can be... and since many people suffer injustice because of such rules, sometimes we have to take matters into our hands and do whatever we can to solve our own problems.
@@prayerlifemusic It's usually in the context of making a decision, that would inevitably bear consequence if no decision was made at all. .... for example, seeing a dog stuck in a hot car.... Better to smash the window and apologise than seek permission while the dog is in danger.... or bothering your boss at 3am about a pressing issue, than not asking at all
The fact that a person on their deathbed cant afford life saving medication is the real crime here. All other actions are a result and therefore no punishment should befall them. The greedy drug manufacturers should however be taken to court and found guilty of some form of manslaughter and be sentenced to rot in jail for valuing currency over human life
@@metsrus true, its reality but thats what law says..ethics say that they should get punishment ..but unfortunatly we live in a society based on "blind-law" and not morals...but again different people have different morals so blind law is kinda best solution..that means yes they are under no obligation to save someones life..sad but true
Congrats, Joshua Lynn! Your opinion is a clear example of the highest sixth level of the post-conventional stage of moral development according to Kohlberg's theory.
Perhaps the druggist spent his whole life sacrificing many precsious wants for the sake of inventing a curative pill. Only the large reward at the end kept him hard at work all those years. Remove that reward and maybe that curative pill may never have been invented. Are we judging the the druggist too quickly? While it should be enough for the druggist to know he/she is saving others this ignores basic human behavior/drives - and perhaps that's the point... ethics helps us rise above basic human behaviors and drives. Hmmm. All that said, I'd have a very hard time punishing the husband.
@@mkrj2576 the question was of individual morality rather than economics. That said your point is extremely valid and maybe raises a question of societal ethics
Priceless? How about the $250k needed to raise a kid to 18? How about the pharmacist needing to make a living for himself and spending his money and time into making the pharmacy or product? Stop being entitled.
@@willleslie2745 this is just for the emergency situation It's about saving life Well it's true that earning livelihood for the pharmacist is equality important. But what you'll choose to do at first when at one side someone is dying and to other someone needs food.
A life is worth exactly a life. If you saving a life endangers a life, then you do no good. If you do save a family member by sacrifising the well-being of another, then you are just deciding who lives and who dies; you play god. While I agree that no money in the world is worth the same as a human life, that only is true as long as the money wasn`t necessary for other people to live. Image that because you stole something, another person lost his job and died? You stole 200$ worth of drugs, which is why the cashier is paid 200$ less. But the cashier needed to use the 200$ to pay for the drugs of his daughter. Was stealing still right? How are you dealing with the cashier's daughter dying?
1. The guy stole the drug, would I do the same? Yes, because survival is a basic human instinct. 2. Would I break a law or go out of my way to help others? Even people I don't like? Yes, because for moral justice to exist it must be enforced across all levels of society. So no, it doesn't change the situation even if the thief didn't love his wife but still stole the medicine for her. 3. Same answer as two. Who it is doesn't matter. 4. From a society standpoint, individual rights allow the Pharmacist to make any price. However, this shows that society is wrong because it allows exploitation of those financial suffering. Society's laws are to blame for this and as a result, should make amends by changing the law to prevent further injustices from occurring. The thief should still be punished, however, the severity should be the absolute minimum established by the laws or an alternative punishment should be established. The Pharmacist although a victim of a crime is not morally right, only legally and the thief is morally right but legally wrong.
I think he shouldn't be arrested for stealing the drug, I totally understand him and would've probably done the same thing... And yes, the person dying being someone he loves plays a huge role
But if you steal the person getz the drug once and gets better but without continuous treatment can be detrimental to her recovery. Thus not only killing her in the long run but also preventing her loved one or her from seeing each other making it lonely scared and messed up for both parties.
1: Should he have stolen the drug? I don't believe in existential "should". If he stole the medicine, and felt confident about the outcome he would face regardless of consequence, then I believe his actions would be well justified. 2: What if he didn't love his wife? I don't think that his wife's death by illness would be his fault if he did not steal because he did not love her. If he caused her sickness, then I would feel he is responsible for her death. 3: What if it was a stranger? I don't believe he would be responsible for stealing the drug for a stranger. If he somehow caused the illness in the stranger, then I believe he would be responsible. 4: Should the pharmacist be punished? If it's against the law to price gauge, then he definitely committed that offense. If it isn't against the law in this scenario, then I suppose he shouldn't be punished for it. I do think that price gauging is morally unjust. In my opinion, justification for one's actions is more important than social law on a individual basis. I think that justification is debatable with respect to validity, so some justifications are better than others. I don't think that law is inherently moral. It only represents the social contract. I believe that members of a society, and law makers should make laws based on the valid justifications made in that society. I think justification should be based on evidence of need/importance of the action, and fairness rather than majority rule.
But the medicine that is being sold, was researched and developed by tax payer money. So, it is like they are selling your bike back to you at 10 times the money. Hmmm
Different perspective will brought out with the last question, especially if you asked it with different age level and status in life, that only implicates that the theory of Lawrence Kollberg was definitely very interesting. As he applies different stage level on how a person will act or determine what's right or wrong, in a one specific scenario.
Don't arrest him but blast that pharmacist on social media. That's one in instance where the cancel culture on Twitter might actually be useful, pressuring him into selling for a lower price.
The pharmacist has every right to sell it for whatever price they want. They put their heart and soul and years into making the product or pharmacy. Stop being brainwashed by society thinking you deserve it all.
will leslie ?!?! Why does the pharmacist “deserve it all”? This is presuming, as do so many, that the man who needs but can’t afford the medication to save his wife doesn’t also work very hard..... typically those with less liquid capital are working the hardest....
For the moral dilemma, I think sometimes you have to accept losses in your life. Try a fundraiser online to raise money if you are desperate enough but stealing would not be the way to go especially if the drug was SO expensive... someone will have to end up paying for that drug because nothing is free in this world, the man would probably get found out for stealing it otherwise how would his wife be alive if the ONLY way she could be saved is through that drug. He would have no record of purchasing that drug in the first place. He could easily be linked to stealing that specific drug as it would likely be one of the only incidents in the area of that drug being stolen. His buddies and even the doctors would also have been told by the man that he cannot afford the drug so everyone would automatically question (especially his buddies) how he got the drug in the first place. People would ask how his wife is alive and how he managed to afford the drug (which would require him to come up with a big lie to cover up- that is, assuming he does not get caught) The whole plan is scuffed because you can see the man grabbing the pill bottle from a broken glass cabinet with no gloves or anything, his fingerprints would be all over the place. How would he get into the pharmacy in the first place as well? BREAK AND ENTER! So now he not only will have a theft (possibly over 5000 depending how expensive the drug really was!) charge but he also has break and enter on his record. He might be able to save his wife from death but in the end he would also face jail time, and most likely fines for all the crimes he committed in doing so. Therefore, stealing the medicine would be the worst possible idea because he is not only very likely to get caught, he would also likely put himself in more financial trouble, probably face some jail time and he wouldn't be able to enjoy the time with his wife. He would also mentally beat himself up about it in his jail cell, thinking about how stupid of a decision it was to try to break into a pharmacy (which would also most likely have cameras giving a profile of the intruder), and steal an extremely expensive drug (deemed the ONLY way his wife could be saved), AND attempt to deliver the drugs to her without the advice of a medical professional (which leaves more room for delivery error but the doctors would probably notice anyways if she started taking the drug lol). In addition, I am assuming she was in the hospital being cared for by medical professionals if she was on her death bed... The man would likely not want to tell the doctors about obtaining the medicine... HOWEVER it just would not work because if she is under supervision the doctors would notice anything happening with her and if she was magically getting better or taking the medication lol.... That pharmacist kinda sucks, but there are sooo many places that up the prices on things, its ridiculous yes but it happens literally all the time... everywhere... If you arrested that pharmacist they should try going around and arresting all the others... we would have no more pharmacists left LOL! For the other options, Heinz is kind of made out to be a douchebag if he didn't love his dying wife... but if there is nothing you can do... there really is nothing you can do... it would be the same as the first option, sometimes you just have to accept losses if you have no other options or hope for a miracle. Why should Heinz care about a random stranger on their deathbed, people die everyday... sad but it is the truth and as important as it is to care and be moral if you set out to care for every person that is dying in the world you would never stop... Thoughts, anyone?
@@annastewart8953 Oh! I am definitely not a sociopath :'( just went a little crazy punching holes in the story that eve. It's a tough scenario and I wouldn't wish death upon anyone or anyone's spouse. Just trying to be realistic as possible, depends how the court would handle something like this, maybe they'd let him off easy because of the situation!
stated facts: 1) The doctors “thought it MIGHT save her” 2)The pharmaceutical company jacked up the price (not the pharmacist - not much different than what happens today in the USA) 3) the $ he rasied from him & friends was not enough... SO, according to the theory, the answer should reflect that “top step” of compassion over anything else. I don’t know if I am at that point of sacrificing myself and violating my morality to help the dying person, but I would want to help anyone who is suffering. Maybe I would try to appeal to the Pharma company’s compassion or use social pressure. Good question.
It depends how you view the world, how you answer, obviously. Ken Wilber has use Kohlberg and Spiral Dynamics among others to create a more detailed system. Enjoyed the video
This is not such a theoretical dilemma, observe rich countries having Covid 19 but poor countries can't afford it and/or the infrastructure to distribute it. Re-phrase the problem: If it was YOUR wife what would YOU do. A man would be condemned for NOT stealing the drug to save his wife's life.
Ironically the poor countries seem to be doing better than the rich countries. They have affordable Ivermectin. The rich countries are forced into vaccine mandates against their will. The pharmaceutical corporations are the bandits. Poor countries are often times more friendly towards their fellow human beings. Rich countries are often in a constant state of competition over who gets to have the most money.
@@wildfire9280 Far too many people allow themselves to be obedient to unjust laws and mandates. They should learn real quick on how to stand up for themselves.
this was so confusing to me, no matter how much i revised. thankyou so much for such a beautiful story interpretation for easy understanding. Much appreciated.
The Heinz Dilemma is an extreme example of today's insulin profiteering in the USA. Getting the drug from Canada is indeed an option a modern-day Heinz should consider. Follow-up questions: At what moral development stage is a pharmaceutical company that jacks up the price for the drug if it were judged by Kohlberg's standards? Can a nation whose most powerful interests are the embodiment of pre-conventional morality effectively serve the interests of the disenfranchised?
I find it interesting that humans think they are moral. The example at the end highlights that we, as faliable creatures, cannot agree on what is right and what is wrong. By whose standard do we measure? Why are my beliefs, feelings and expectations greater or lesser than anyone else's? We need a set of objective standards to measure morality.
I like to watch contents like this which provoke my thoughts. and more than that after watching the video I go through the comment section to find out how others are thinking and where am I stayin. how far is the gap and how much is the morality and ethical difference between the society and me. But one difference is that I am from South India (kerala), which I consider compared to other states keeps higher standards in morality and ethics. My society is growing except the religious chaos. I always compare myself with my society and the comment section of European society, which is the only way of comparison to other countries possible for me. Well, I find myself getting improvement. Hope one day all these religious chaos will end and we will also rise 😊
As a rule, I ascribe to the principle that the end doesn't justify the means. However, in such cases like this, where ANYONE in such dire need would perish without basic medicine, food, etc., I believe the theft of the medication is the right thing to do. This is because I feel ANY human being's life warrants protecting. Not my first choice to steal, of course, but the medication was crucial to this woman's survival and that life is certainly more important than the over-priced medication. But I can't think of any other type situation besides this where the end justifies the means to that end.
How about this moral dilemma... since it has been found to be unnecessary to consume animal products for human health. And that animal products come from unnecessary exploitation, abuse and the murder of animals. While also producing enormous amounts of pollution and requiring an even more exorbitant amount of resources to produce. What justification does one have to continue participating in funding such a vile industry?
1. Yes he is justified stealing the drug considering it's a life/death scenario, however he should leave money to pay for original price of the drug + repairs for the break-in. 2. It would make a difference, because his bond with his wife would not be the same, thus he might not go so far as to risk jail to save her life. 3. Pretty much same as 2, lack of connection with a person would make him even less compassionate. 4. Our current laws do not support scenarios as elaborate as this one, so you cannot arrest him for murder. However we can spread the story and let the people have justice, by shunning the pharmacist.
I'm new to this amazing platform. Your way of explaining the matter is commendable. May you soar higher and higher and impart knowledge like this. Keep up the good work.
Sprouts All your points, from Lawrence Kohlberg and Piaget’s theory, are quite valid and the Heinz story example at the end is an exact replica of the same story I’ve been asked before; though the story has its own share of reasons and justifications, it also missing the most crucial moral code. You start of with a sick woman 👩🏽 in bed 🛌 with her husband, Heinz, who has very little money 💵, you have the only druggist 👨🏽⚕️ who has the only drug 💊 for the woman 👩🏽 who is only selling the drug for ten times the production cost, refusing to sell to the husband for half price and you include friends who are unable help the husband with the money 💵 , you have the husband break into the laboratory to get the medicine, then add the dilemma, that the sick 🤒 wife 👩🏽 is not even loved by her husband, or the sick person is an unrelated friend of the man 👨🏽 and suggested the druggist be arrested for murder if Heinz’s wife were to die. In the end all choices are both right and wrong, since there’s no moral standard and no moral authority or obligation, in fact the question of Heinz’s love would be the point that should connect with the love of the author of morality and the sacrifice of that love.
On the last question: Strange how many are judgmental of the man who stole, to save a life and not of the drug maker who let people die, to make a dollar.
That's not what's happening. You're just not understanding the argument. You've not reached Stage 6 of the moral development. You're stuck at either 4 or 5. Try to really read and understand what people are saying and why they are saying it.
Excellent! Succinct, informative, entertaining. I think it is perfectly okay for Heinz to steal the drug. The right to life is more important than the right to property.
Not right to life is being violated because there is no active killing taking place. If the right to life is more important then you are saying that you and everybody you know are killers because you don't donate everything you have to saving people all over the world from dying. Just because one didn't provide you with a service and you died because of it, does not make the other person a murderer or make your rights violating action proper. I'm not saying that stealing was immoral in that instance btw. If he values the life of his wife more than his imprisonment then it is necessarily moral for him to steal. He would just have to face the consequences as a member of a rational governmental system. He did violate the rights of the pharmacist after all while the pharmacist just did his job and did not violate the rights of anybody.
Wow! This explains a lot of social conflict and the disconnect. We argue about a subject matter. Yet, in reality we are speaking about completely different matters. The event maybe tangent and yet invisible to all parties.
Very well explained. The first two stages are based on pure selfishness and self preservation. Very common even in adults. I think the teacher is duty bound to follow and enforce the rules and regulations. However I just wondered for how long these students had been left alone. The Social contract lady Jessy is very interesting, wonder why she never called attention to Toms behavior the day before when he punched the Grade 1 student?. Does Jessy know that nothing could have been done to Tom? Would she have been required to show evidence, which she may have felt would be too much of a bother? Hallo Law courts? Is this Theory taught in law school and especially to future Judges? For last case, Heinz was justified to break into the Pharmacy, since he felt desperate, had tried to his level best to get the medicine legally and hopefully saved the wife. However whether he will go to jail depends on the stage level of the Judge or members of the Jury. As for the drug store owner, he cannot go to jail for refusing to sell the medicine, since he seems to be in a capitalistic market where profits go as high as one can get away with. Perhaps someone should start a social media campaign which will be directed towards looking at how to reduce cost of life saving medication for the poor members of the society.
Now a days, Heinz could start a fundraise for his wife, or raise awareness about the unfair prices to pressure the pharmacy into lowering them. If Heinz tries to rob the store right after revealing he needs the medicine, he will be the first suspect and will go to jail and his wife will die.
Here are my questions 1. The doctors said it might save her. What If he did all of that and it still didn't save her? 2. Can he set up a payment plan and how long will it take him to pay that off? 3. Is the medication for one time use or reoccurring usage? 4. Do I get away with it? What's the risk vs. the gain here. Honestly, you save your wife and go to jail. Your quality of life has decreased and you're not with your wife. Your wife dies, and you grieve and move on with your life, your quality of life doesn't decrease as much.
To respond to the moral dillema being presented in this video, the husband shouldn't be arrested for stealing the medicine as we know from the case that it was not his first response but was caused because the pharmacist was using his monopoly to jack up the prices. In any case, he should to told to pay a fair price to the pharmacist to buy that medicine. The pharmacist too should be fined for using his monopoly power in the way that could cause a life and death situation. A progessive pricing limit needs to be provided to him whereby can only charge upto a certain amount to people with certain amount of income.
It depends on the what the sick wife wants, if she is asking for the drugs then I would exhaust all favors and drug research methods. I would also reach out to the pharmacists family and colleagues for help, if nothing changes then I would confront darkness with darkness knowing that it will provide light later on. I would also ask out loud for the universe to provide my wife with the cure she needs, sometimes the strangest things happen when you speak out loud.
How and why you interpret what you think is a reliable answer, "When you ask your self", depends on what you understand holistically. Doing your research helps more than sitting in expectation.., sometimes.
1- did he try absolutely everything else? Asking for a loan, selling his stuff, charity, etc? If yes, then he is justified, but still has to face the consequences. 2- it's a matter of value. Does he think his wife's life ua worth the risk? 3- same as 2 4- no. He is no more guilty than someone who doesn't sell the medicine. If he goes to jail, it woyld put too much risk into being a pharmacist, and that would put other pharmacies out od business, making ir worse for other sick people
It depends upon the type of situation we are in. At times, we keep our distance but sometimes we tend to intervene this or that way to break the fights.
which would involve accountability on part of the pharmaceutical industry who literally controls the politicians who are made incredibly wealthy pushing for pharmaceutical laws. Think about it, people in congress....are millionaires. If that isn't corruption I don't know what is. The person who draft the minimum wage laws get cash outs from multi-billion dollar business to approve laws that are to the benefit of their companies.
we have a moral obligation to help each other, so the pharmacist was a tyrant for withholding the medicine. we have a moral obligation to stand against tyranny so the man was in the right for stealing the medicine. if he had not loved the woman then the man would be even more just because he would be standing against tyranny selflessly.
I remember a variant of the pharmacy in the videogame Okamiden, in which a kid steals medicine to help his mother. The doctor (Bluebeard, if I recall) appears to take the medicine back but after a bit gives it to the kid, saying that if the kid's family is poor, he should have said so first. And the quote "You got a mouth, right? Learn how to use it."
we can see that the stage 5,6 in social contract it can defend the his stealing, but in stage 6, he should be punished because he was familiar with the rules of socities
As for the Moral Dilemma: 1. Yes he should steal it (then face the consequences) 2. Yes it would make a difference if he didn't love her (harsh but true) 3. If it was a stranger then similar to not loving wife, there is not connection strong enough to overcome moral restraints. 4. Unless he committed a crime then No he should not be arrested (its not a illegal to be an asshole)
but the question is, would it be okay for him to do it if it was a stranger, or he didnt love his wife. and would the pharmacist be held responsible if she died.
As to the moral dilemma at the end. I think Heinz made the correct choice but would not have done it myself due to the fear of the negative consequences of having a criminal record if caught. Instead I would probably set up a social campaign to shame the pharmacist into reducing the cost and probably fail.
I'm glad Heinz stole what he needed. He could do it for his wife or for a complete stranger. The police should arrest the pharmacist. The courts of law should make sure that a pharmacist is not allowed to sell medicines at an inflated price. Heinz should be congratulated for his love of humanity. For he so loved his fellow humans that he was willing to break the law in order to save them from certain death.
@@thegratefulsteve Yes, I agree completely. We have and are trying to make the positive changes within our own little world. It has to start at home and within a small community of people.
We made a book! The Unschooler’s Educational Dictionary. www.amazon.com/Unschoolers-Educational-Dictionary-Lighthearted-Curriculum-Free/dp/168481359X/ Secure your copy to discover a world beyond traditional schooling, revolutionize your understanding of education, and empower your approach to parenting and teaching. #unschooling
1- Avoiding Punishment
2- Seeking interest
3- Societal conformity
4- Maintaining the social order
5- Social contract
6- Ethics are paramount, and laws change to serve it.
My answer to the question at the end: Breaking the law to save a life is justified, and almost any judge would dismiss the case for extenuating circumstances. But even if that were not the case, if the man could have saved his wife's life, or a complete stranger, it would still be a noble act for him to be willing to go to jail for stealing the drug, putting others' needs above his own. As for the pharmacist, I wouldn't send him to jail either. While I do believe that he has a MORAL obligation to help the man's wife (if not by giving the drug freely or at a reduced price, then at least agreeing to some kind of installment plan), he doesn't have any LEGAL obligation to help her. It's just like if I see someone drowning, I'm morally obligated to do save them, but not legally obligated. It's not the job of the police to force us to be good people, just to prevent us from directly infringing upon each others' freedoms. So for that reason, the pharmacist shouldn't be arrested, but should be held accountable in other ways, such as future customers taking their business elsewhere.
Both should be arrested, one is for missing the aid on is for breaking in. If you reach just the 2nd logical step, you will see both actions are illegal. I mean if you are able to preserve a life but you miss it you are a crimer too. Lawn dont argue about economical transactions, so its irrelevant, only can shrink down the quality of punishment. That question is more on logics for me. Well maybe save ur wife also can shrink it, maybe save a strange man not much. It is not my mistake that the question itself is based in an one-step logical system.
Completely agree @shawn ravenfire
The sad thing is that society poses this dilemma all too often, but when compassion is practiced by all, both sides are served. Might our moral obligation then be to alter society's view of what is legal? Laws are not always ethical or moral.
"It's not the job of the police to force us to be good people, just to prevent us from directly infringing upon each others' freedoms." Very well said!
I agree
I’m 26 , it took me 26 almost 27 years to understand this. As an adolescent child I knew helping others being bullied was right, as a teen I would question every rule my religious conservative family had. Disagree with most agreeing with very little. Now as an adult I understand we are all different and see life through different eyes and experiences , compassion and understanding is the core of justice and to understand your fellow human as a human is what will stop you from inflicting more pain on the world.
lived the same life lol.. i had a friend he was 2.2meters.. i would just tell him to take care of the bullies.. many kids tolt us they where very happy with us.. we told them. if it happens again tell us. if i founded out they used us to bully instead of help.. we stoped "helping" them..
teachers left us alone.. walked away or looked away. we just bully them.. name caling. taking there school bag, trowing stuff. making the big buys beg us to stop. if it got pyshical. he would pick them up by there underware. funny fact. bullies hate it when they get bullied. and they dont need much to stop..
At 0:46, Fin's fear of punishment isn't from the teacher; Fin's fear of punishment is from getting his ass kicked by the ninth graders!
True that
@@angelfromheaven123 fo sho ;D
it has sublevels. first the bully second you have to face the teacher. both annoying but the most fearful would be the bully
Maybe one of the 9th graders is a big brother to the 1st grader Tom punched and Tom's getting what he deserves.
The only reason the teacher can step in is because he's bigger.
sometimes you have to do the wrong thing for the right reasons and apologise afterwards. help those that cannot help themselves.
Exactly. That's a hard pill for a lot of people to swallow. Some people never do. I'm still struggling with it.
laws were created to be safezones, not the cages they are today(I.E. speeding, on the average day you should be driving at a normal speed for the safety of you and others, on other days, where you have to get to the hospital for an absolute emergency, it is within reason that you'd go faster to survive)
“Apologize later” provides ultimate license to do what we wish. Apology would not be needed if we broke the rule for a higher ethical principle.
I'd have no regrates in saving my Wife
but it also violates the very rule of ethics. doing evil for the sake of its good outcome is still morally evil :/
In response to the moral dilemma at the end, I would suggest trying another pharmacy.
UPDATE
Many people have pointed out that the dilemma said the drug was not available elsewhere. I missed that at first. However, that is because the dilemma is now completely implausible and unrealistic. Drug stores do not make unique pharmaceuticals. I thought of other bizarre aspects of the scenario too. It is not usable today. Perhaps more important, this experience underlines how far we usually go to avoid getting boxed into dilemmas like this.
Thinking outside the box, eh? I like it!
@@jh4766 Ah yes. I got a bit confused because in this story the 'druggist' (i.e. the pharmacy store) is the one that makes the drug, not a pharmaceutical company with the resources to research, test, and get approval for the drug. This unrealistic element passed me by on viewing the first time.
@@matthewleitch1 It was a _realistic_ element when the dilemma was first proposed. The FDA wasn't around to -protect incumbents- promote drug safety at the time.
@@jarrod752 The more I think about the story the more I find the whole thing bizarre and implausible. Why would you be desperate to buy a drug that has been created in a way that provides no reasonable assurance that the drug will be effective? If the drug is being sold by someone who just wants to make money from it, then why won't they sell it to a customer who is offering all he has? I realise it's difficult to construct these moral dilemmas without this sort of problem.
@@matthewleitch1 Yeah, that and anybody these days would probably be willing to give it to heinz on credit, and let him make payments.
So Heinz casually forgot about his baked bean and ketchup company?
LMAOO
LOLOL!
Lol
Hahahahaahha this really cracked me up... Lol now i need to stabilize coz everytime i hear the story i do not take it seriously...
Hahaha. From philippines
My kid's psychologist told me my daughter's sense of conscience was more fully developed than my ex's. This is super interesting.
Then again your daughter is going to a psychologist. Psychologists are simply lay clergymen. Most of them have received "help" at some time too. Nothing wrong with that. Converted sinners make the best saints.
Genetics dictate that kids can only be what they were made from
@@youtubisashoeAnd then Evolution says, "Hold my sweet tea...!"
@@MrBobbymacaroni youre not gonna notice any “evolution “ in a brief lifetime of one human tf you on about?
@@youtubisashoe Looks like somebody is stuck at stage 1.
I remember being bullied and not being able to fight back because I was taught violence is bad and didn't want to be punished or didn't want my mother to know me beating up someone :(
This is common western braingwashing. To conform and to never hurt someone. Next time beat the shit out of them back, or get yourself some pepper spray. Do not conform to society. Society is always wrong because we are run by filthy governments and companies
@@willleslie2745 we should avoid violence as much as possible, but when forced, when we need to defend ourselves or someone else and there is no other choice, then it's the right thing to do, like Michael Jackson said "just beat it"
@@willleslie2745 big facts
@@willleslie2745 big facts, they make the rules so that they can be the only ones breaking the rules.
Ahh it's not good fighting for ur own self isn't violence even if u see someone being bullied u should help them too :)
Help us to reach more teachers to learn about morality: patreon.com/sprouts
Pov: your psychology teacher is making u watch this
how did you know!!??
@@xanadu2002 haha 😂 my one made me n my class watch it 😂
Or criminology teacher!
Nope criminology teacher but close
@@australiandoggo5688 wait why is there so many new people ;-; hiii
It's a rule-of-law test. The scenario (at the end of the video, btw) provides a set moral questions that suggest (imply, whatever) that a system of rules cannot always provide a moral (principled, whatever) outcome to every interpersonal conflict in a society, which is true (btw). The answer you give to these questions is going to reflect your personal values.
Obviously, you (or, any given person) want to respect the law. However, if the rules of law, which is simple system of rules trying to resolve a complex set of circumstances that occur in your (or, any given) society, fail to provide a moral or principled outcome in a given scenario, the correct thing to do is reevaluate the law, or the application of the law, and make corrections or realignments so that the desired outcome occurs. Of course, not everyone will have the same desired outcome. So, if a person ranks their principals so that the preservation of life supersedes the protection of property (perhaps in every situation, but not necessarily), they'll find a way to justify taking the drug away from the pharmacist (by whatever means) and saving Mrs. Heinz (who should have a enough money to buy the drug in the first place because they sure seem to sell a lot of ketchup, but whatever).
Regardless of how you answer these questions, if the answers you give result in the preservation of life over property, then you obviously value life over property (or the concept of personal property). Which, I suppose, is the point of the questions. You can make more of a drug, and you can resolve a personal property dispute after the fact with some sort of just outcome, but you cannot restore a life lost to decision based on a set of rules that fail to resolve a complex scenario unforeseen by the author(s) of the rules. If you don't have confidence in the answers you give these questions (which I expect is pretty common), it's probably because you are having a hard time resolving the conflict between your principals; respect for an individual's choice of how they conduct their business and deal with their property (the pharmacist), or the preservation of one person's life over the liberty of another's. Some would find this an easy choice, and some would not. Also, the amount of time you have to think about your answers and/or your values may matter.
So, if you read this far, maybe you want my answer. I have to assume that Mrs. Heinz (or whoever) has a fixed amount of time to live and that immediate action is the only way to save her (or them: I think they made that clear in the video, but a time constraint is an important condition that has to be true, so I want to state my assumption here). Also, I'm assuming the pharmacist actually made the drug and is not just selling someone else's product. This matters to the question of the pharmacist's actions and responsibilities. The answer (based on my values) is to steal the drug, save the wife (or even a stranger), turn myself (Mr. Heinz) in to the authorities, and deal the consequences, which include paying for the drug after the fact.
In case you're thinking it, yes, I'm aware that someone, somewhere, is probably dying of a treatable medical condition right now. The context of this story is what I'm talking about here, so, no, I'm not going to go hunt for a situation so I can rob a pharmacist and save someone's life. I'm just responding to the situation given, and, yes, I'm going to have a different answer for a different situation. Whatever choice I make in any given situation is personal and does not act as a baseline for my opinion of what others choose to do (the pharmacist, for instance). That said, it's absurd (and immoral) to withhold a replicable drug in a situation where a life can be saved and compensation can be resolved later. But, as we all know, this does happen. If I were the pharmacist, I would probably have a different business model that wouldn't result in the situation given. I'd probably not be in business for very long either. However, I do not believe the pharmacist in the above scenario is a murderer for withholding a drug that he can make but demands compensation for.
Regardless of how you change the scenario, I'm going to put the value of life over the certain liberties of an individual because that's how I rank my values. Different scenarios will yield different variations on the same theme or outcome, but my values will always place the the right of an individual in immediate peril to live or survive over the right of another individual to retain or acquire wealth at the expense of another. So, it doesn't matter how you change the scenario, how I change my answer will be based on these values.
tl;dr: of course I'd steal the drug, it wouldn't matter if I loved my wife, It wouldn't matter if it was a stranger, and I don't think the pharmacist should be charged with murder.
You forget an important thing! The ought of Hippocrates, he is bound to it, in this case the pharmacist. So yes he has to endure the consequences. Your text is instructif and mostly subjectif. internal motivations does play here; I wrote - I think before turning a burglar I should follow the moral path , if and only if time does mattes, than still I would do the moral path (shortcut) and go right afterward the burglar path. Leaving money, and turn myself in. Greetings.
The husband is legally unjustified but morally justified. He committed the act of theft but rescued his dying wife. The pharmacist is the opposite; he is legally justified and morally unjustified. He cannot be forced to sell his product cheaper, but he could’ve set up a payment plan to make it affordable. I feel like the best solution is to have the government negotiate drug prices to make it affordable. No single individual can change anything, but collectively our voices for better healthcare will be heard. ⚕️My stage is 5: Social Contract. The laws should be enforced, but I understand laws can be poorly designed. Getting politically involved and advocating your rights is the best pathway forward.
Well summarised
I agree something must be done. But doing the same thing that has had disastrous results when done in the past is probably not the way to go. Government setting prices has failed time and time again in many other areas. I know you said negotiate, but the government rarely negotiates when it has the power to simply dictate. Alternatively allowing the industry to help draft regulation doesn't work well either. That is how the US went from over 2 dozen car makers in the early 20th century to just 3 in the mid 20th century. Those 3 helped draft the regulation.
I don't know if this has been tried before, but what if instead of giving a pharmaceutical company inside our borders exclusivity, we expand it to those outside our country can get approval as well. Broadening the market. As I understand it right now foreign pharmaceutical companies can import drugs into the US on a case by case basis if they have no part of their company here. Meaning that a citizen can order a medication from outside the US only so long as the drug in question is not made here. But as soon as a company here in the US begins making that drug, citizens are not allowed to get that drug from the foreign companies that have had mass production, and thus a lower price; and must instead begin buying the drug from the US company at whatever price the US company sets. I remember hearing about a case about 5 to 8 years ago about this. And I think the FDA still has it this way.
How it works as I understand it is if you have a condition and require a drug that is not available in the US and doesn't have FDA approval you can get special dispensation thru the FDA to purchase the drug abroad. Until a US company gets approved by the FDA to manufacture that medicine and the FDA cancels your special dispensation.
www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/?sh=71f5805b1a71
I know the data is a little old, but I think it hasn't changed that much in the last decade. Without large profits, interest in researching and developing new drugs would dry up. And as the graph shows 40% of all the new research in the world is done by the US. For that to take a significant hit I fear in our drive to reap the benefits we accidently kill the goose laying the golden eggs. I know the extortion rates of some medications are going to hurt some people. I just don't want our desire to save a few end up killing the many of the future.
@@davidtherwhanger6795 Government has a lengthy history of negotiating outcomes over dictating them when their resolution is a national concern (strikes are an example), though there is certainly some guaranteed dictation, especially when regulations have been broken (at least there should be; assuming enforcement).
Also, what you mentioned about the FDA sounds like protectionism. Which is surprising since I feel most would say the U.S has committed itself to the principles of free trade and economic liberalization since the federal income tax (to which middle class Americans actually contribute more) and WW2.
POV: you're watching this video because of ETHICS
Yeaàaa HAHAHA
Yes hahahah
HAHAHAHAHAHA hands up
HAHAHHAAHAHA
Ifyyy
Two things I want to add. One, to be careful of pit traps. Someone at moral development stage 1 and someone at moral development stage 3 shows the same reaction to what happened. It's good to carefully think things through. Two, it *seems* that the more morally developed someone is, the less they *seem* to respect the rules. Disobedience to rules does not immediately indicate moral development. Rules are needed as a vague guideline. A sign of moral development is how you could consider every factor without bias to concoct a solution that fits the situation.
Basically not every solution fits every problem and never think that if you seem like the most morally developed person, no other opinion should be heard except yours.
Exactly right. If you think Stage 6 is about living irrespective of all rules then you're mistaken. It's simply stating that moral ethics should be the foundation of laws. And when rules and morally ethical practice clash, what is morally right should supersede what is legal. But it does not mean all rules and laws are null
A good test for discerning the latter point, in my opinion, is to ask somebody to state in general terms what moral weighting goes into the decision of whether or not to break a rule. There is not necessarily a "right" answer here, what's important is that the answer is sound and principled. A neoliberal (using the philosophical definition) may argue only certain unjust rules may be morally broken, since a general agreement to follow rules you believe are wrong but not egregiously so is necessary for those rules to actually inform and control action. Staunch Millsian Libertarians meanwhile may believe it is always morally justifiable to violate rules when there is no possibility that unconsenting others would be harmed in the process, out of placing paramount value on freedom of the self. As you said, having a complex understanding of morality that recognizes laws as being approximations of and in service to ethics is quite distinguishable from the egoist disposition to merely ignore laws altogether.
Amazing. Well said!
Level 7: Let the world burn.
Because of self interest...
When you get tired of worrying about morality and the consequences of everything so it would just be easier if the world ended.
That’s why CORONA comes in.
Level 0. Impulse control isn't even attempted.
Level 7: Justice and evil, I am beyond that now.
This is the first time I've heard about these stages of moral development and the Heinz Dilemma. As I was watching the video I noticed that I was repulsed by the pharmacist's unwillingness to help the Heinz's dying wife. Heinz breaking into the pharmacy to steal the drug to save his wife was admirable. I think his actions were justified considering he was saving his wife's life. I also think the situation changes depending on whether the sick person was his wife or a stranger, though it shouldn't really. I think that a life is a life and how do we measure the value of a life compared to that of another? Here's a question, though: how would the situation change if the wife's condition was such that giving her the drug would save her life but only prolong her pain and suffering? Then, perhaps, the pharmacist wouldn't be such a bad guy in the story. Do I think pharmacists should be arrested for selling life-saving drugs at 10x the manufacturing price? Hell yes.
I only disagree with your last answer, the police's job is to promote freedom by stopping bad deeds, not forcing good ones. The pharmacist only has a moral obligation to help her, and should be held accountable in a different ways, like letting all of his customers know about his deed.
What if the pharmacist is charging 10x because the medicine is rarely demanded and most of his stock will expire ?
it is mentioned that he is selling 10x manufacture cost so this question is not as straight forward as it sounds
Very simple, think of robbing your own mother. there is your answer.
The Big Pharma is doing exactly that! There should be awareness amongst people and resistance, so the poor husband shouldn't be driven to steal 😕 in the first place.
Heinz's action of stealing is justifiable since the pharmacist prays on the helplessness of the patients they know would need such medicine, leaving Heinz only one option to take if he wants to save his wife. Should Heinz not love his wife or if it were to be a stranger then he wouldn't take such a risk, and I see nothing wrong with it. All lives are equal but our senses of value are not. Gold is precious, but why? To us normal people it is because there's a huge demand for gold and we can sell them for cash. To the richer class, it is because they believed gold is a luxurious good that is suitable to show their wealth. To scientists, it is because of its incredibly useful properties. If there's no demand for gold, we will just view them as shiny pieces of metal, no more valuable than rocks. If gold is not viewed as valuable, they mean nothing to the richer class since they can't flex their wealth with it. Should there is no such need for gold in the electronic field, scientists will simply ignore them. It all comes down to how we feel and what we can get out of them. Between a stranger and his wife whom he loved so dearly, the stranger is obviously not of the same value to Heinz. Now, about the pharmacist, do I think he should be arrested? Well, that depends. He is for sure not a kind person, but evil? Not necessary. He simply aims for the profit he can make and even though disregards others in the process, his aim is not to bring harm to anyone. What I do believe though, is that such action should be illegal, but if it's not, there's no real reason to arrest him for the law does not require him to be compassionate toward others and he has done nothing wrong. My view on this will not change even if the medicine will only prolong the wife's suffering for the pharmacist doesn't take that into account at all but simply thinks about the profit.
The first scenario of the children fighting occurred when I was in 3rd grade. Two larger kids were viciously beating a smaller one, lying on the ground bloodied and screaming. I was horrified and wanted to stop the attack. The large crowd of other kids, however, were cheering and encouraging the attackers, like some kind of mob excited with blood lust.
Where would their behavior fall on this spectrum?
I felt helpless to do anything, and being a child could think of nothing, so I moved along home and told my mom. We got in the car and drove back by where it had happened, but it was all over by then.
I learned everything I ever needed to know about human nature on that day.
A mixture of Stage 2 (self interest)- encourage the bullies so they understand that you are on their side and Stage 3 (conformity)- one person cheers so another joins in, starting a snowball effect
don't be too fast, I believe you will still have more to learn about human nature.
That’s also called the bystander effect unfortunately
My initial thoughts on the questions at the end are:
1) No, he shouldn’t have broken in and stolen the medicine, because getting caught would make a bad situation even worse. And also it’s a blessing that a drug even exists that can save his wife’s life. The fact that it would benefit his wife doesn’t give him the right to steal it. And he’s not considering the cost on the pharmacist to repair any damage from the break-in. However if he got caught, considering the circumstances, I would believe he shouldn’t be charged, but let off with a warning and only charged if he breaks in again.
2) If he doesn’t love his wife then his reasons for stealing the drug are no longer obvious to me and I’d want to know why he stole it. Perhaps he’s just stealing it because he believes it’s the right thing to do, even though he’s not gaining anything personally from his wife recovering. But him stealing it even though he doesn’t love his wife doesn’t make it more or less morally acceptable to me.
3) If he was doing it for a random stranger it still doesn’t make it more or less morally acceptable to me. Again, I would wonder what his reasons were though.
4) No, the pharmacist shouldn’t be charged with murder as I’m assuming his motive for not giving the drug was because he wasn’t being paid his asking price. Not because he wanted the man’s wife to die, even if he knew that giving him the drug at half price would save her life. Unless it could be proven beyond resonable doubt that the reason he didn’t give Heinz the drug was because he knew Heinz’ wife would die and he wanted her dead. Although I don’t know what he should be charged with if that was the case.
However, I think the pharmacist should seek to have an understanding of the significance of what his drug can mean to people and that lives can be saved or lost as a result of taking or not taking the drug. And he should put measures in place that help him stay profitable while being able to help the poor have access to his drug.
Laws have been invented to enforce limits on behavior, primarily force and deceit, which can destroy relationships. The man faces a dilemma between two evils, letting his wife die and breaking a law that prohibits a behavior that, if it became generalized, could destroy society. Of course, he isn't thinking about that, not with his wife dying.
It is we, as citizens, who must think about that. How far are we willing to allow the law to be flouted? If society collapsed, many people would suffer from the effects of looting, violence, and a lack of production of those things we need to live better lives. The only place that we are all forced to think seriously about these issues is a jury. But, when we let busy judges do all the work, we, as a population, do not develop the moral sense an advanced society needs in order to function ethically. Then, judges, who don't necessarily have a higher moral sense than the ordinary citizen, can start making decisions that society in general does not agree with, creating rifts between the law and a large sector of the general population.
It's hard for us as individuals to judge at what moral level we are at. Our self interest and fears make our moral sense shift, depending on different circumstances, especially emotional ones. That's why an impartial jury is so important to keeping the use of public power ethical.
Well said 👍
Yes. This is the best we can do at our current development. But if we lived in Cuba or someplace that provides healthcare as a right and has prescriptions included, then this man would not have this dilemma.
There are levels above those mentioned here.
Without the Tao
Kindness and compassion
Are replaced by law and justice
Faith and trust are supplanted
By ritual and ceremony
✌️❤️🕉
@@Spiral.Dynamics Have you lived in Cuba? Somewhere that isn't a reward for loyalty to the party that now funds itself with casinos and prostitution for those visitors who believe it's a worker's paradise, that ruthlessly represses opposition and makes sure everyone stays in the place designated by the party elites? When you do, come tell us about how much kindness and compassion there really is there.
I can assure you that more kindness and compassion exists where it isn't part of the same body in society that relies on the threat of a gun to get its job done.
Karen Ness You’re splitting hairs here.
Ok.,so a person who lives 10,000 years ago in a village where there is no money and healing is included.
Life is not a zero-sum game. Someone who lives in Cuba is free from the dilemma presented here. They may have other dilemmas that you think that you are free of.
@@Spiral.Dynamics The video is about moral development. I originally made the point that we need laws that sometimes come into conflict with other values and that it's in a jury where we should resolve those life and death conflicts and the only place we can, as a people raise our, or, if you will, raise the average moral sense. Point being that if we relegate the job to judges, we don't develop the moral sense we need collectively as a populous and advanced society where new medicines to treat rarer diseases can be researched and developed.
You brought in Cuba and now some ancient mythical time we know little about where there is little evidence of well-being, but where we know that old age was nowhere near egalitarian. If they survived beyond the age of three, they were probably quite hardy, but, on average, still didn't live very long.
You are right, neither in Cuba or 10,000 years ago is stealing medicine a dilemma. Such a rare medicine would probably not be available for anyone but the elite in Cuba (they probably fly to Miami to be treated) and 10,000 years ago the only medicine available didn't take the average person much beyond 25 years of age, assuming such knowledge was generalized or freely shared by those who had it. No pharmacies available to the public, no dilemma there.
Resolving dilemmas effectively often means splitting hairs, not wildly swinging the axe of wishful thinking. (Forgive my intellectual brutality. ) Every time and place has its advantages and disadvantages, every person's perspective has its advantages and disadvantages.
Though the rules must to be black and white, (they need to be clear if they're to be of any use as guides to our behavior,) life isn't black and white, but the grays most certainly are about splitting hairs and that is a serious job we should all engage in as often as we are able to, precisely to develop our moral sense, not make glib comments we don't think through carefully before throwing them out.
(If I could give your feelings some anesthesia to help you analyze these ideas carefully, I would, but unfortunately the only way to exercise our moral muscles is to learn to tolerate discomfort and sometimes even pain. Cuba and any glib talk about socialism is painful to me because we lost two uncles in the family to violence by adherents of the doctrine. Not something I can be glib about.) Live long and prosper.
1 - Stealing when it is life itself that is at stake is justified as an emergency right. It's the same principles that a state would follow if a starving person broke into a mall in the middle of nowhere in order to feed himself. A society cannot rationally expect people to substitute survival, a natural high imperative with secondary legal regulations, so the way it is normally dealt with is that the person is indeed liable for the economic damages of their action and can expect to have to re-compensate in that field, but he should not expect a criminal charge at the end of it, though the price hike may or may not feature in that settlement.
2 - In good and bad days, in sickness and in health is my own take on it. It changes quite little unless the degrees and justifications reach a certain absurd point. Otherwise, there will be an established expectation of care. Same concept if one encounters a baby in the cold woods that is clearly abandoned. Leaving it to perish from exposure would constitute a criminal lack of care and it would matter quite little if one really hates babies. On the moral front, I suppose showing love to those one hate is a strong quality even if unnatural.
3 - Much from the above follows, though here there can also be justification of distance. I might see a report over a starving Sudanese village, I might have the means and the ability to change something about it, but still elect other priorities even if blatantly lesser and that would not be in and of itself criminal. If it is a random person in the street dying then yes you are required to at the bare minimum get them help. If it is a random person laying in your own bed? The same and you should probably some divorce paper with that.
4 - Secondary factors can be key there. Firstly what the law is. Secondly why were the prices hiked? Was it due to a lawful increase from the board or was it due to the salesman's personal dislike of the customer or his wife. Or perhaps something external like realities of inflation. Did the person have any belief that this customer was telling the truth or attempting to scam? Normally, it would not make it to court unless some circumstances are quite damning, not would there be reason to make an arrest there or then unless again the circumstances are entirely unlawful, which is different than immoral. Murder would barring extreme circumstances not be on the table as that involves taking life more than it involves letting die, or absence of care, unless the intent was personal and the price hike artificial there would be nothing justifying an attempted murder charge. Chances are regulations would probably be the natural way to handle such.
I love content like this where we are presented with different social theories or experiments. Love Sprouts for doing this. I am thankful to you that I am finally discovering content that I love.
Hi Krithik Vakil thank you so much for the encouraging comment. It really means a lot to us! If you do like our videos and want to support us in making more, you can subscribe to our channel or consider becoming our Patron at www.patreon.com/sprouts
Read psychology . It is interesting
@@sprouts do you take internships also??
Steal the drug, cure the wife, turn yourself into the police. A jury would then be the judge of the situation, and hopefully the pharmacist would be punished for price gouging and putting human lives at risk. A pharmacist, as part of the medical community, is still bound by the Hippocratic oath, which he is in violation of in this scenario.
The husband could have offered other ways to offset the price, work for the pharmacist or offer him a service, ask for credit instead of discount. It may or may not have been accepted, but he chose theft which was not his only option.
@@myloohagan5686 I'm afraid that many poor people don't even have credit and although such people work hard, individuals like the pharmacist don't actually keep their word. Let's not forget that we live in a sick society, where many diligent honest people are exploited by others. People will do anything for money. They even kill their peers for it.
@@georgianagheorghe8848 I'm poor, I can't get credit, I work hard. I don't remember any promises given or implied to me by any pharmacist ever. How can a society be sick? It is dynamic and as versatile as the individuals that create it from day to day. People need money, that is undeniable, in fact I have dressed up in a bio suit and hosed down tons of human shite just to get money. I've plundered dumps and refuse to get money. If I fail to make money my family suffer and starve to death and it is my fault. If the pharmacist fails to cut his profit and my wife dies as a result it's his fault?
The pharmacists is not doing price gouging. The politicians and pharma companies are. But you just don’t see them. The pharmacist’s wife is also sick at home and dying. He needs to make enough money to buy the same medicine for HIS wife. If HE sells the magical medicine to the man, he (the pharmacist) looses 50% and then the pharmacist will not be able to afford the money to buy the drug for HIS own wife and SHE will die!!!
@@Kittyququmber ugh.... there comes a point in time where you have to step in and help. Pharmacists make a LOT of money, please don't make excuses for a heartless Pharmacist
Our morals develop all throughout our lifetime. True that the stages especially the last one may not always be completed. Most of the time too, we find ourselves going back and forth through the stages. It's the sign that we have not really firmly grasp the stages that we must have completed and the element of Choice and Values would always come into play. 😇🤓🤩
Thank you for sharing.😇😁🤓
There is social conformity, when an asshole put you "sticks in the road/way of development" whitout reason and only for personal use. There is no respect for a bunch of criminals who break laws, and hypocrites which goes to represent a cause , and start lieing and twisting the reality. It is a paranoid, delayed there in top-than they should be removed. Becauze that is what they have learned and apply laws. Pieces of shit, I have no idea how they even belive that someone will ever give them attention. I have never experienced in my life-that I am attracted by assholes!
One of the important phrases: Kohlberg sought to confirm his theory. That's not how things are supposed to be done.
I believe all human beings have a right to make a demand on the compassion of human society for a relief of suffering. But human society is nowhere near that place where all people receive empathy and compassion equally. So I wonder to whom exactly are we supposed to submit justification to for such a belief.
Hahaha studying for my child psychology exams and reading comments here is like 😂😂😂😂😂
@457 0X procastination
Given the situation I'd say that although his intentions were good, his means of getting the medicine is obviously wrong. But then when we weigh things out there are much more good that's happening. For stealing he gets to cure his wife and he might go to jail (its up to a competent judge) but I guess he wont even regret it knowing he saved her life. It's still a better choice if there is no other choice.
This is one of the most informative and knowledgeable youtube channel that I have watched
It's sad how best content is seen by very few. These videos are like classis quality music. They are great but hardly seen and harshly noticed.
True!
Still in awe of Kohlberg coming up with this. 🙌🙌🙌
i mean,. right?
I personaly think it quite weak. Laws are built upon the ethics of a society; thus, by putting the lawful person on another level than the ethical principles, he principally misunderstood society. We don`t just write laws without thinking about it, we think about what is right and create or change law to reflect our beliefs. Thus, the lawful person would be the person who acts upon the ethics of the society he lives in, while stage five and six live by their person ethics.
my parents were overprotective and this video helped me find a good description of some of the effects - i'm still stuck in the first phase of moral development
This theory is just an opinion that has not been proven using any scientific method. Morals and ethics are completely subjective and don't follow any development scale.
1. Obedience and punishment
2. self interest
3. Interpersonal accord and comformity(gaya gaya nalang)
4. Value authority and maintaining social order
5. Social contract ( if they deserve it they deserve
6. Universal Ethical principles
Abstract ethical principles that serves understanding of justice
Pre conventional - driven by fear and self interest, not by social norms
Conventional - responds to peeer pressure and teacher follows rules, about society whats right. Rules are questioned
Post conventional - understanding that one may disobey rules due to morality
Good thing I found this video! Someone shared their notes and it only included the levels, not the stages! Great breakdown and resource ❤
1. Hines did the right thing by stealing the drug. Even though it is illegal, and likely to result in punishment, it is the only way he can save his wife's life.
2. It wouldn't matter if he didn't love his wife, although he might be less likely to risk punishment if that is the case. Stealing the drug is still the right thing to do.
3. If it is a stranger, Hines might be more likely to consider it someone else's problem, and decide not to risk going to jail to save someone he doesn't know. No one would blame him for feeling this way. But if he chose to commit a crime to save the life of a stranger, he would be morally justified.
4. The druggist should not go to prison if the wife dies, though I would hope he would be wracked with guilt for the rest of his life.
David Roddick: The questions weren't designed to establish "right or wrong". People at a level 4 aren't going to agree with level 5 positions... they don't perceive them. They are into self-interest.
David, I think you hit the nail on the head here. A lot of people won't like it, but I fully believe this is stage 6 thinking. I formulated my answers similarly before I read yours.
Had a childhood friend who did jail time because her mom needed expensive treatment for cancer. She ran a travel agency and stole from her customers to pay for it, her reasons didn't matter. She went to jail and of course her mom died soon after without her caregiver. So damn sad!
yeah, our capitalist society is bs
America?
Yes, the state of Michigan. She was always such a sweet soul, but the state puts money above people, unfortunately. Watching a parent die can be unbearable. I feel so bad for her.
Sad😥
That’s horrible the medical system is so f$&@ed up.. speaking as a former pharm tech
It all depends on the decision the person makes and the situation he is in. Many rules can be... and since many people suffer injustice because of such rules, sometimes we have to take matters into our hands and do whatever we can to solve our own problems.
Otherwise known as situational ethics.
I appreciated the explanation. Interesting how the developers draw the audience in to continue the social experiment.
Like we used to say in the army...
'It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission' ... (if in doubt)
Pro
This gives license to do whatever we wish - not a good ethical principle.....
@@prayerlifemusic It's usually in the context of making a decision, that would inevitably bear consequence if no decision was made at all.
.... for example, seeing a dog stuck in a hot car.... Better to smash the window and apologise than seek permission while the dog is in danger.... or bothering your boss at 3am about a pressing issue, than not asking at all
Stage 7 : The Purge
Stage 8 : Return to Stage 1
Love this channel’s work!
Thank you, Turtlezcatz!
The fact that a person on their deathbed cant afford life saving medication is the real crime here. All other actions are a result and therefore no punishment should befall them. The greedy drug manufacturers should however be taken to court and found guilty of some form of manslaughter and be sentenced to rot in jail for valuing currency over human life
nope, they have a right to charge what ever they charge. They are under no obligation to save anyone's life.
@@metsrus true, its reality but thats what law says..ethics say that they should get punishment ..but unfortunatly we live in a society based on "blind-law" and not morals...but again different people have different morals so blind law is kinda best solution..that means yes they are under no obligation to save someones life..sad but true
Congrats, Joshua Lynn! Your opinion is a clear example of the highest sixth level of the post-conventional stage of moral development according to Kohlberg's theory.
Perhaps the druggist spent his whole life sacrificing many precsious wants for the sake of inventing a curative pill. Only the large reward at the end kept him hard at work all those years. Remove that reward and maybe that curative pill may never have been invented. Are we judging the the druggist too quickly? While it should be enough for the druggist to know he/she is saving others this ignores basic human behavior/drives - and perhaps that's the point... ethics helps us rise above basic human behaviors and drives. Hmmm. All that said, I'd have a very hard time punishing the husband.
@@mkrj2576 the question was of individual morality rather than economics. That said your point is extremely valid and maybe raises a question of societal ethics
As a child myself, I rarely do moral things out of self interest; I do them just BECAUSE.
Life is priceless
So steal and save
I'll deal with everything happens next
Priceless? How about the $250k needed to raise a kid to 18? How about the pharmacist needing to make a living for himself and spending his money and time into making the pharmacy or product? Stop being entitled.
@@willleslie2745 this is just for the emergency situation
It's about saving life
Well it's true that earning livelihood for the pharmacist is equality important.
But what you'll choose to do at first when at one side someone is dying and to other someone needs food.
A life is worth exactly a life. If you saving a life endangers a life, then you do no good. If you do save a family member by sacrifising the well-being of another, then you are just deciding who lives and who dies; you play god.
While I agree that no money in the world is worth the same as a human life, that only is true as long as the money wasn`t necessary for other people to live. Image that because you stole something, another person lost his job and died? You stole 200$ worth of drugs, which is why the cashier is paid 200$ less. But the cashier needed to use the 200$ to pay for the drugs of his daughter. Was stealing still right? How are you dealing with the cashier's daughter dying?
congrats! the clear example of the stage 6 of moral development: the universal ethical principles!
1. The guy stole the drug, would I do the same? Yes, because survival is a basic human instinct.
2. Would I break a law or go out of my way to help others? Even people I don't like? Yes, because for moral justice to exist it must be enforced across all levels of society. So no, it doesn't change the situation even if the thief didn't love his wife but still stole the medicine for her.
3. Same answer as two. Who it is doesn't matter.
4. From a society standpoint, individual rights allow the Pharmacist to make any price. However, this shows that society is wrong because it allows exploitation of those financial suffering. Society's laws are to blame for this and as a result, should make amends by changing the law to prevent further injustices from occurring.
The thief should still be punished, however, the severity should be the absolute minimum established by the laws or an alternative punishment should be established. The Pharmacist although a victim of a crime is not morally right, only legally and the thief is morally right but legally wrong.
Wrong. It is not exploiting anyone to have private property rights.
I think he shouldn't be arrested for stealing the drug, I totally understand him and would've probably done the same thing... And yes, the person dying being someone he loves plays a huge role
But if you steal the person getz the drug once and gets better but without continuous treatment can be detrimental to her recovery. Thus not only killing her in the long run but also preventing her loved one or her from seeing each other making it lonely scared and messed up for both parties.
1: Should he have stolen the drug? I don't believe in existential "should". If he stole the medicine, and felt confident about the outcome he would face regardless of consequence, then I believe his actions would be well justified.
2: What if he didn't love his wife? I don't think that his wife's death by illness would be his fault if he did not steal because he did not love her. If he caused her sickness, then I would feel he is responsible for her death.
3: What if it was a stranger? I don't believe he would be responsible for stealing the drug for a stranger. If he somehow caused the illness in the stranger, then I believe he would be responsible.
4: Should the pharmacist be punished? If it's against the law to price gauge, then he definitely committed that offense. If it isn't against the law in this scenario, then I suppose he shouldn't be punished for it. I do think that price gauging is morally unjust.
In my opinion, justification for one's actions is more important than social law on a individual basis. I think that justification is debatable with respect to validity, so some justifications are better than others. I don't think that law is inherently moral. It only represents the social contract. I believe that members of a society, and law makers should make laws based on the valid justifications made in that society. I think justification should be based on evidence of need/importance of the action, and fairness rather than majority rule.
But the medicine that is being sold, was researched and developed by tax payer money. So, it is like they are selling your bike back to you at 10 times the money. Hmmm
Learning ethics and watching this video, best combo ever
Different perspective will brought out with the last question, especially if you asked it with different age level and status in life, that only implicates that the theory of Lawrence Kollberg was definitely very interesting. As he applies different stage level on how a person will act or determine what's right or wrong, in a one specific scenario.
Don't arrest him but blast that pharmacist on social media. That's one in instance where the cancel culture on Twitter might actually be useful, pressuring him into selling for a lower price.
The pharmacist has every right to sell it for whatever price they want. They put their heart and soul and years into making the product or pharmacy. Stop being brainwashed by society thinking you deserve it all.
will leslie ?!?! Why does the pharmacist “deserve it all”? This is presuming, as do so many, that the man who needs but can’t afford the medication to save his wife doesn’t also work very hard..... typically those with less liquid capital are working the hardest....
Wow, this was super helpful in remembering these stages! Interesting and attention-capturing video.
For the moral dilemma, I think sometimes you have to accept losses in your life. Try a fundraiser online to raise money if you are desperate enough but stealing would not be the way to go especially if the drug was SO expensive... someone will have to end up paying for that drug because nothing is free in this world, the man would probably get found out for stealing it otherwise how would his wife be alive if the ONLY way she could be saved is through that drug. He would have no record of purchasing that drug in the first place. He could easily be linked to stealing that specific drug as it would likely be one of the only incidents in the area of that drug being stolen. His buddies and even the doctors would also have been told by the man that he cannot afford the drug so everyone would automatically question (especially his buddies) how he got the drug in the first place. People would ask how his wife is alive and how he managed to afford the drug (which would require him to come up with a big lie to cover up- that is, assuming he does not get caught)
The whole plan is scuffed because you can see the man grabbing the pill bottle from a broken glass cabinet with no gloves or anything, his fingerprints would be all over the place. How would he get into the pharmacy in the first place as well? BREAK AND ENTER! So now he not only will have a theft (possibly over 5000 depending how expensive the drug really was!) charge but he also has break and enter on his record. He might be able to save his wife from death but in the end he would also face jail time, and most likely fines for all the crimes he committed in doing so.
Therefore, stealing the medicine would be the worst possible idea because he is not only very likely to get caught, he would also likely put himself in more financial trouble, probably face some jail time and he wouldn't be able to enjoy the time with his wife. He would also mentally beat himself up about it in his jail cell, thinking about how stupid of a decision it was to try to break into a pharmacy (which would also most likely have cameras giving a profile of the intruder), and steal an extremely expensive drug (deemed the ONLY way his wife could be saved), AND attempt to deliver the drugs to her without the advice of a medical professional (which leaves more room for delivery error but the doctors would probably notice anyways if she started taking the drug lol).
In addition, I am assuming she was in the hospital being cared for by medical professionals if she was on her death bed... The man would likely not want to tell the doctors about obtaining the medicine... HOWEVER it just would not work because if she is under supervision the doctors would notice anything happening with her and if she was magically getting better or taking the medication lol....
That pharmacist kinda sucks, but there are sooo many places that up the prices on things, its ridiculous yes but it happens literally all the time... everywhere... If you arrested that pharmacist they should try going around and arresting all the others... we would have no more pharmacists left LOL!
For the other options, Heinz is kind of made out to be a douchebag if he didn't love his dying wife... but if there is nothing you can do... there really is nothing you can do... it would be the same as the first option, sometimes you just have to accept losses if you have no other options or hope for a miracle.
Why should Heinz care about a random stranger on their deathbed, people die everyday... sad but it is the truth and as important as it is to care and be moral if you set out to care for every person that is dying in the world you would never stop...
Thoughts, anyone?
This explanation is one of the most perfect examples of sociopathic thinking I've ever seen. Ever.
@@annastewart8953 Oh! I am definitely not a sociopath :'( just went a little crazy punching holes in the story that eve. It's a tough scenario and I wouldn't wish death upon anyone or anyone's spouse. Just trying to be realistic as possible, depends how the court would handle something like this, maybe they'd let him off easy because of the situation!
stated facts:
1) The doctors “thought it MIGHT save her”
2)The pharmaceutical company jacked up the price (not the pharmacist - not much different than what happens today in the USA)
3) the $ he rasied from him & friends was not enough...
SO, according to the theory, the answer should reflect that “top step” of compassion over anything else. I don’t know if I am at that point of sacrificing myself and violating my morality to help the dying person, but I would want to help anyone who is suffering. Maybe I would try to appeal to the Pharma company’s compassion or use social pressure. Good question.
This video should be your 1ST STEP TO START UNDERSTANDING the Moral development theory of Kohlberg. Thank you!
It depends how you view the world, how you answer, obviously. Ken Wilber has use Kohlberg and Spiral Dynamics among others to create a more detailed system. Enjoyed the video
being a nerd and watching this before my class starts on this subject and laughing at all these comments.
This is not such a theoretical dilemma, observe rich countries having Covid 19 but poor countries can't afford it and/or the infrastructure to distribute it. Re-phrase the problem: If it was YOUR wife what would YOU do. A man would be condemned for NOT stealing the drug to save his wife's life.
Ironically the poor countries seem to be doing better than the rich countries. They have affordable Ivermectin. The rich countries are forced into vaccine mandates against their will. The pharmaceutical corporations are the bandits. Poor countries are often times more friendly towards their fellow human beings. Rich countries are often in a constant state of competition over who gets to have the most money.
*covid 19 vaccine
@@chrisgillard6129 Against their will? A country can force itself to do something against its own will?
@@wildfire9280 Far too many people allow themselves to be obedient to unjust laws and mandates. They should learn real quick on how to stand up for themselves.
@@chrisgillard6129 None of what you’ve implied is unjust is actually unjust. Public health is well within the purview of government as it’s… public.
this was so confusing to me, no matter how much i revised. thankyou so much for such a beautiful story interpretation for easy understanding. Much appreciated.
Welcome! Join us on Patreon ;)
I want to become a teacher, i just discovered this chanel and I'm so glad I did, it's so interesting ! Thank you !
Join us on patreon.com/sprouts too ;)
He should move to Canada and get the medication free.
Lol
The Heinz Dilemma is an extreme example of today's insulin profiteering in the USA. Getting the drug from Canada is indeed an option a modern-day Heinz should consider. Follow-up questions: At what moral development stage is a pharmaceutical company that jacks up the price for the drug if it were judged by Kohlberg's standards? Can a nation whose most powerful interests are the embodiment of pre-conventional morality effectively serve the interests of the disenfranchised?
I find it interesting that humans think they are moral. The example at the end highlights that we, as faliable creatures, cannot agree on what is right and what is wrong. By whose standard do we measure? Why are my beliefs, feelings and expectations greater or lesser than anyone else's? We need a set of objective standards to measure morality.
do unto others as you would have them do onto you. Funny how something so simple can work
for 2000 years
Look at Jesus, he is the standard. We are way too fallible as you said
The man should organise a campaign, so others can help.
This. This is the very point of community, unfortunately mostly absent in the west currently.
I like to watch contents like this which provoke my thoughts. and more than that after watching the video I go through the comment section to find out how others are thinking and where am I stayin. how far is the gap and how much is the morality and ethical difference between the society and me.
But one difference is that I am from South India (kerala), which I consider compared to other states keeps higher standards in morality and ethics. My society is growing except the religious chaos. I always compare myself with my society and the comment section of European society, which is the only way of comparison to other countries possible for me.
Well, I find myself getting improvement. Hope one day all these religious chaos will end and we will also rise 😊
Just to let Sprouts know - I appreciate how beautiful the art is :)
As a rule, I ascribe to the principle that the end doesn't justify the means. However, in such cases like this, where ANYONE in such dire need would perish without basic medicine, food, etc., I believe the theft of the medication is the right thing to do. This is because I feel ANY human being's life warrants protecting. Not my first choice to steal, of course, but the medication was crucial to this woman's survival and that life is certainly more important than the over-priced medication. But I can't think of any other type situation besides this where the end justifies the means to that end.
I agree, which is also why I believe for-profit health systems are inherently wrong.
How about this moral dilemma... since it has been found to be unnecessary to consume animal products for human health. And that animal products come from unnecessary exploitation, abuse and the murder of animals. While also producing enormous amounts of pollution and requiring an even more exorbitant amount of resources to produce. What justification does one have to continue participating in funding such a vile industry?
1. Yes he is justified stealing the drug considering it's a life/death scenario, however he should leave money to pay for original price of the drug + repairs for the break-in.
2. It would make a difference, because his bond with his wife would not be the same, thus he might not go so far as to risk jail to save her life.
3. Pretty much same as 2, lack of connection with a person would make him even less compassionate.
4. Our current laws do not support scenarios as elaborate as this one, so you cannot arrest him for murder. However we can spread the story and let the people have justice, by shunning the pharmacist.
In Point 2, it is only different from his own self interest. From a general moral perspective, it would still save a life...?
I'm new to this amazing platform. Your way of explaining the matter is commendable. May you soar higher and higher and impart knowledge like this. Keep up the good work.
Sprouts All your points, from Lawrence Kohlberg and Piaget’s theory, are quite valid and the Heinz story example at the end is an exact replica of the same story I’ve been asked before; though the story has its own share of reasons and justifications, it also missing the most crucial moral code.
You start of with a sick woman 👩🏽 in bed 🛌 with her husband, Heinz, who has very little money 💵, you have the only druggist 👨🏽⚕️ who has the only drug 💊 for the woman 👩🏽 who is only selling the drug for ten times the production cost, refusing to sell to the husband for half price and you include friends who are unable help the husband with the money 💵 , you have the husband break into the laboratory to get the medicine, then add the dilemma, that the sick 🤒 wife 👩🏽 is not even loved by her husband, or the sick person is an unrelated friend of the man 👨🏽 and suggested the druggist be arrested for murder if Heinz’s wife were to die.
In the end all choices are both right and wrong, since there’s no moral standard and no moral authority or obligation, in fact the question of Heinz’s love would be the point that should connect with the love of the author of morality and the sacrifice of that love.
Nice one.Ethical development is paramount, especially in today's world where life ethics is dieing. That's why I specialized on ethics on my channel.
School needs to teach youth about this
I'm here right now for a school project !
On the last question: Strange how many are judgmental of the man who stole, to save a life and not of the drug maker who let people die, to make a dollar.
That's not what's happening. You're just not understanding the argument. You've not reached Stage 6 of the moral development. You're stuck at either 4 or 5. Try to really read and understand what people are saying and why they are saying it.
Excellent! Succinct, informative, entertaining. I think it is perfectly okay for Heinz to steal the drug. The right to life is more important than the right to property.
Thank you David! Very happy you like the video :)
Not right to life is being violated because there is no active killing taking place. If the right to life is more important then you are saying that you and everybody you know are killers because you don't donate everything you have to saving people all over the world from dying. Just because one didn't provide you with a service and you died because of it, does not make the other person a murderer or make your rights violating action proper. I'm not saying that stealing was immoral in that instance btw. If he values the life of his wife more than his imprisonment then it is necessarily moral for him to steal. He would just have to face the consequences as a member of a rational governmental system. He did violate the rights of the pharmacist after all while the pharmacist just did his job and did not violate the rights of anybody.
Should we enforce a blood tax?
@@SiMeGamer 👌👌
Wish my high school had that kind of headmaster.
Wow! This explains a lot of social conflict and the disconnect. We argue about a subject matter. Yet, in reality we are speaking about completely different matters. The event maybe tangent and yet invisible to all parties.
Pls ,make a video about "productivity"and how to achieve it
Very well explained. The first two stages are based on pure selfishness and self preservation. Very common even in adults. I think the teacher is duty bound to follow and enforce the rules and regulations. However I just wondered for how long these students had been left alone. The Social contract lady Jessy is very interesting, wonder why she never called attention to Toms behavior the day before when he punched the Grade 1 student?. Does Jessy know that nothing could have been done to Tom? Would she have been required to show evidence, which she may have felt would be too much of a bother? Hallo Law courts? Is this Theory taught in law school and especially to future Judges? For last case, Heinz was justified to break into the Pharmacy, since he felt desperate, had tried to his level best to get the medicine legally and hopefully saved the wife. However whether he will go to jail depends on the stage level of the Judge or members of the Jury. As for the drug store owner, he cannot go to jail for refusing to sell the medicine, since he seems to be in a capitalistic market where profits go as high as one can get away with. Perhaps someone should start a social media campaign which will be directed towards looking at how to reduce cost of life saving medication for the poor members of the society.
Now a days, Heinz could start a fundraise for his wife, or raise awareness about the unfair prices to pressure the pharmacy into lowering them. If Heinz tries to rob the store right after revealing he needs the medicine, he will be the first suspect and will go to jail and his wife will die.
Here are my questions
1. The doctors said it might save her. What If he did all of that and it still didn't save her?
2. Can he set up a payment plan and how long will it take him to pay that off?
3. Is the medication for one time use or reoccurring usage?
4. Do I get away with it?
What's the risk vs. the gain here.
Honestly, you save your wife and go to jail. Your quality of life has decreased and you're not with your wife. Your wife dies, and you grieve and move on with your life, your quality of life doesn't decrease as much.
This was helpful for my NCE exam.
To respond to the moral dillema being presented in this video, the husband shouldn't be arrested for stealing the medicine as we know from the case that it was not his first response but was caused because the pharmacist was using his monopoly to jack up the prices. In any case, he should to told to pay a fair price to the pharmacist to buy that medicine. The pharmacist too should be fined for using his monopoly power in the way that could cause a life and death situation. A progessive pricing limit needs to be provided to him whereby can only charge upto a certain amount to people with certain amount of income.
It depends on the what the sick wife wants, if she is asking for the drugs then I would exhaust all favors and drug research methods. I would also reach out to the pharmacists family and colleagues for help, if nothing changes then I would confront darkness with darkness knowing that it will provide light later on. I would also ask out loud for the universe to provide my wife with the cure she needs, sometimes the strangest things happen when you speak out loud.
How and why you interpret what you think is a reliable answer, "When you ask your self", depends on what you understand holistically. Doing your research helps more than sitting in expectation.., sometimes.
1- did he try absolutely everything else? Asking for a loan, selling his stuff, charity, etc? If yes, then he is justified, but still has to face the consequences.
2- it's a matter of value. Does he think his wife's life ua worth the risk?
3- same as 2
4- no. He is no more guilty than someone who doesn't sell the medicine. If he goes to jail, it woyld put too much risk into being a pharmacist, and that would put other pharmacies out od business, making ir worse for other sick people
It depends upon the type of situation we are in. At times, we keep our distance but sometimes we tend to intervene this or that way to break the fights.
I'm here because this is my part on our reporting 🤔
Thank you for sharing ♥️💗
How about we get affordable healthcare so he could afford the med🤷♀️
which would involve accountability on part of the pharmaceutical industry who literally controls the politicians who are made incredibly wealthy pushing for pharmaceutical laws. Think about it, people in congress....are millionaires. If that isn't corruption I don't know what is. The person who draft the minimum wage laws get cash outs from multi-billion dollar business to approve laws that are to the benefit of their companies.
Increase productivity IMO. Theft usually cause very bad incentives for wealth creation.
we have a moral obligation to help each other, so the pharmacist was a tyrant for withholding the medicine. we have a moral obligation to stand against tyranny so the man was in the right for stealing the medicine. if he had not loved the woman then the man would be even more just because he would be standing against tyranny selflessly.
I remember a variant of the pharmacy in the videogame Okamiden, in which a kid steals medicine to help his mother. The doctor (Bluebeard, if I recall) appears to take the medicine back but after a bit gives it to the kid, saying that if the kid's family is poor, he should have said so first. And the quote "You got a mouth, right? Learn how to use it."
So helpful! Studying for my aswb social work exam.
we can see that the stage 5,6 in social contract it can defend the his stealing, but in stage 6, he should be punished because he was familiar with the rules of socities
I just had an exam on this on Wednesday !
And how was your answer?
Thanks from india
yes
In a structurally Just society, access to healthcare is absolute and removes this moral dilemma...
As for the Moral Dilemma:
1. Yes he should steal it (then face the consequences)
2. Yes it would make a difference if he didn't love her (harsh but true)
3. If it was a stranger then similar to not loving wife, there is not connection strong enough to overcome moral restraints.
4. Unless he committed a crime then No he should not be arrested (its not a illegal to be an asshole)
It was okay for Heinz to steal the medicine as his wife was dying.
but the question is, would it be okay for him to do it if it was a stranger, or he didnt love his wife. and would the pharmacist be held responsible if she died.
As to the moral dilemma at the end. I think Heinz made the correct choice but would not have done it myself due to the fear of the negative consequences of having a criminal record if caught. Instead I would probably set up a social campaign to shame the pharmacist into reducing the cost and probably fail.
I'm glad Heinz stole what he needed. He could do it for his wife or for a complete stranger. The police should arrest the pharmacist. The courts of law should make sure that a pharmacist is not allowed to sell medicines at an inflated price. Heinz should be congratulated for his love of humanity. For he so loved his fellow humans that he was willing to break the law in order to save them from certain death.
Adamantly opposed to the current system we find ourselves in today.
@@thegratefulsteve Yes, I agree completely. We have and are trying to make the positive changes within our own little world. It has to start at home and within a small community of people.
I'm watching this video bcz of developmental psychology. Thanks a lot for your videos. Great content. Your videos helped me a lot.
Sprouts is glad to be a part of your learning journey.
this video was easy to follow and i love the background music. thanks!