Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:29:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1070 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> Yes, it's a classic Kohlberg dilemma. [1] I think you can make a good
> argument for _either_ response being the high moral ground, depending on
> your framework of morality.
>
> 1. In Europe, a woman was near death from a very unusual kind of cancer. [2]
> The doctors thought that one drug -- a form of radium discovered by a
> druggist in the same town -- might save her life. The druggist paid $400
> for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. Heinz,
> the sick woman's husband, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money
> and tried every legal means, but he could only raise $2000, half of the
> drug's selling price. Heinz pleaded with the druggist, explaining to him
> that his wife was dying. He presented several options to the druggist:
> sell the drug to Heinz at a cheaper price, let Heinz pay for the drug in
> installments or let Heinz pay for it at a later date. But the druggist
> said, "No, I discovered the drug and I¼m going to make money from it."
> Heinz is now considering breaking into the drug store and stealing for
> his wife.
Mayhap I'm confused. How is this a moral dilema?
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
