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 / 2252
2251  |  2253
Subject: 
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:19:38 GMT
Viewed: 
1179 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
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.

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 druggist being a jerk. :)

James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/



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

81 Messages in This Thread:



























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

Custom Search

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