To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 2251
2250  |  2252
Subject: 
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:02:32 GMT
Reply-To: 
lpieniazek@novera.comSPAMLESS
Viewed: 
1122 times
  
Matthew Miller wrote:

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
Saving hapless bidders from being foolish may be fun, but it's not fun
enough to compromise morals.

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.

2.  Of course, "dying of cancer" is not the same as "ignorant people being
    ripped of on eBay". But it's the same kind of problem.

Weeeelllll... I know I'm walking into the same old debate as before!

But it seems SO clear cut to me. In my opinion Heinz doesn't have the
right to the drug. If this drug really truly is somehting Heinz is
incapable of inventing for himself, it's not just or right to defraud
the druggist from his due. The druggist presumably went to school for
years to learn how to make it. This may be the only chance he has to
recoup that investment.

Now, were I the druggist I'd happily take a time payment scheme if Heinz
was credit worthy. But the druggist may not care about his reputation
within the town and that's his right. Heck, even if Heinz shows up with
the entire 4K in cash the druggist is within his rights to refuse to
sell.

Doing business (choosing to associate) is itself a good and there is no
right to free goods, no right to demand to associate with someone who
chooses not to associate with you.

If THAT doesn't generate some backflame then we truly HAVE beat this
topic to death.

One can only hope.

--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com  http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.

NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.



Message has 5 Replies:
  Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
 
(...) [2] (...) Agreed. No moral situation here. (possibly an ethical one, but that's a different debate, and this case doesn't have enough information to make an ethical judgement). However, I'm fairly certain I can make a good case for the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
 
(...) Arguably, Heinz could come up with some kind of spiced tomato sauce, and sell vast amounts of it so that others may enjoy spearing it all over their fried potatoes, pizza dough, and spaghetti noodles. *THEN* he could afford the $4,000... (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
  Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
 
(...) Old debates die hard :) (...) I certainly agree here. Heinz doesn't appear to me to have any right to the drug; and neither does his wife. Rights don't really seem to dictate proper ownership in this case other than the druggist. After all, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
 
(...) So in your schema, right to property is more important than right to life. (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
 
(...) This is why Libertarianism breaks down because mean people suck. Not all people are good. If *everyone* had a good heart, people would be able to respect property rights AND each other's needs as well. But as it is, a heartless Bunghole is (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
 
(...) 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. (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.theory)

81 Messages in This Thread:



























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR