Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:04:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1244 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> All of these are irrelevant to the main thrust. The druggist's motivations
> for not selling are not important.
Hmm... Important to Hienz's claim on the drug? No. They're not. Hienz has no
claim to the drug if he hasn't acquired it from the druggist in some manner
(trading/selling/performing services/etc.. not threats or beatings, etc.,
though)
Is it important as to the moral standing of the druggist? Yes. I'd say the
motivations CAN be influential to the situation at hand, insofar as whether or
not the druggist is justified in selling or not selling. If he's just trying to
make a quick buck, he's less moral than if he's trying desparately to support
his own family.
> > In other words, what if the druggist is just being selfish? In this case,
> > let's suppose someone else got the drug for the 4K just like Heinz wants. Now
> > Heinz comes along (let's say the druggist has a virtually unlimited supply of
> > the drug) and the druggist denies sale (or Hienz tried first, doesn't
> > matter). I'd say that the druggist doesn't have the right to deny sale, based
> > on the fact that Hienz and the other buyer 'should' be treated equally.
>
> Why?
That's just my take on it. People 'should' treat each other equally. If there's
two exactly similar situations, the outcomes of which you control, you 'should'
choose the same outcome for each. Of course in reality no two situations are
exactly alike, but again, this is the hypothetical.
> Allow me to draw a parallel hypothetical situation. There is a natural
> disaster, and several people are left in a state unable to care for
> themselves. Several other people are made aware of this. Those other people
> chose not to send food and clothing. The first group all die of exposure and
> starvation. Would you argue that the second group are in the wrong?
The difference here is quite obviously the situation. What's the motivation
behind not sending the clothing and food? Assumedly, sending food and clothing
negatively affects the 2nd party in your example. They make a sacrifice for the
other people's lives. My understanding in the Hienz example is that the
druggist is making no sacrifice. In fact, he'd be making a gross profit; and he
STILL won't sell it (I'm responding to the 'Heinz pulls the 4K together and the
druggist still doesn't sell). It appears (to me) that the druggist HAS no
reason for not selling it. In your example, there are reasons that span from
negligible to vital for the 2nd group to make a choice not to send supplies.
Maybe the 2nd party NEEDS the supplies themselves, or maybe it's just an effort
for them they don't want to deal with. The big difference is that not only does
the druggist apparently have NO reason to sell, he has a reason TO sell-- that
of profit. If the druggist has no reason at all not to sell, and doesn't,
knowing full-well the consequences of his actions, I'd say he's immoral.
> > Again, it's null and void if the druggist's situation is otherwise than him
> > only seeking profit. But this is a life-and-death matter. Certainly it
> > doesn't apply with the McDonald's set thing.... Unless I've been uninformed,
> > nobody was at death's door for a Lego set. :)
>
> Why is profit the determining factor?
Profit is what determines whether the druggist is behaving morally or not. It
doesn't have to be profit in terms of money, per se, but profit of any sort. If
He's seeking profit only, it makes him less moral. The idea behind that, to put
it in more basic terms is that to try and benefit from others at their expense
is immoral. But bear in mind, it's not black and white... if he's making a $1
profit, he's less immoral than seeking $3600 in profit. I'd say he's being too
greedy, and I feel greed is immoral. You certainly don't have to agree with
that, but I do.
> Responding to a wrong action with a wrong action does not make things better.
> It contributes to the decline of a moral system. The correct response to a
> wrong action is to (explain the wrongness of it to the offender, and) impose
> and enforce penalties.
Exactly my point. He shouldn't steal the drug. It'd still be wrong. As for
enforcing penalties, now we get to the tricky part. If the druggist's actions
are immoral, who is to judge and enforce penalty? Perhaps Hienz feels that he's
already explained it sufficiently to the druggist (being the offender), and
also feels that he should be in charge of enforcing a penalty-- in this case,
stealing the drug. That's where it gets tough-- deciding an impartial moral
judge & prosecutor. Hence, saying the 'correct' response is to explain and
penalize is kind of tough to judge without an accepted moral standard.
Generally the response is for both parties to accept the judgement of some
third party who is impartial; hence the court system.
> I suspect that Larry would say that morality had little or nothing to do with
> his actions. He was acting on his own initiative to improve the market,
> within (what he understood as) the bounds of the contract.
Well, of course, I'm not Larry, but it sounds like his reasoning behind it was
both to provide information and to undermine the seller's action. I'd guess
that if the set were selling for $1.25, he wouldn't have felt the need (at
least not as much so) to post the set's info. He would have more likely passed
it off as un-needing of his attention. I think that the fact that he saw it as
an injustice helped to sway his hand, and that impulse is to what I am
referring. His action may still have been neutral in nature, but the impulse
one of the impulses behind it was not... but again, I'm not Larry... I don't
know...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
