Tough ethical question

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so their rights be should be less than that of say, Eli Lilly?

They don't have any pre-existing right to exclusively sell the medicine. That's different from the case where a company already has that right. In this case we have to decide whether or not to give ownership to the victims.

Eli Lilly has the right to exclusively sell medicine that they have patents on because that is incentive for companies to research and develop new medicine. I don't like the system, but that's the way it is. I don't see why we should compromise the welfare of those who would benefit from the medicine when there is no social benefit to doing so as there is with the policy of granting patents for medicine that has been developed by companies like Eli Lilly.

[Sirotnikov]

of course use.

such things as property rights exist to promote the advancement of science, medicine and humanity's welfare. It is supposed to give incentives to people to invest resources in such things.

after the damage was done the cure already exists. the fact that it was produced using slavery and so on is understandably bad, but that's no reason to destroy it.

obviously there should be some compensation mechanism so that the patients see some profit -but generally the cure should be used by everyone and its 'recipe' freely distributed.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't see any big dilemma here. Of course you use it. If it will help alleviate the suffering of millions, then at least the victims can know that their suffering was not in vain.

If they object for some reason (I can't imagine they would), then tough luck. Justice was served at the elimination of the evil guys. It would be so appropriate to take the fruit of their evil and use it for a great good.

[Q Classic]

Use it.

[Zkribbler]

Easy, my forces moved in, rescued the victims and discovered the documents.

The victims all owe their miserable lives to me and the documents are mine, mine, mine, all mine!

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
if there are victims still around, why not ask THEM what they think should be done? Shouldnt they OWN the results - not just in terms of monetary benefits, but in terms of decision making?

edit: your scenario of factions etc doesnt really matter. Its still up to the victims, in some fashion. No more right to take it away cause you dont like their decision than for someone to enslave YOU to make a cure.


I HOPE youre not using this hypothetical as cover for a
the real question of research by Nazis on their victims.

Edit:your request to avoid real world associations is silly. There IS NO veil of ignorance. Better to deal with the real world ethical dilemma as we find it, than to pretend to an abstract objectivity.

Why should it belong to the victims? Without your rescue they'd all be dead by now!

I don't like to cover nothing and I was too lazy to do a short research on nazi behavior and such so I make it more abstract. Still it's a valid problem.
Above all I don't like your tone too much.


Anyway there is another similiar problem. E.g. the lord of the rings, you just killed sauron and are standing on top of the volcano possessing the ring. Which would be the best descision? Use it to help mankind, give it away (to home) or destroy it.
These are always the three descisions you have and bear some ethical dilemma.

[Zoid]

Use it of course. At least something good would´ve come out of all the atrocities.

[Dinner]

A friend of mine is doing a college assignment for his philosphy and ethics class and he asked a bunch of us to help. I'm currently thinking about how I will respond and I thought it might be interesting to see what people here at poly thought. Here we go:

Tip: Answer the question of what HE should do and not what YOU would do.


The Heinz Dilemma
In Europe, a woman was near death from a very bad disease,
a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging 10 times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together only about $1,000, which was half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the Druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Questions:

1) Should the husband, Heinz, have stolen the drug? Why/Why not?

2) What if the Heinz didn't’t love his wife? Should he have still stolen it?

3) If you were the doctor and discovered your office had been broken into, would you be as upset if you found the $1000.00 in the place of the drug?

So what is your anwser?

[Frankychan]

Use.

Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.

Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"

Use it, and those victims that want to only give it to the "upperclass", laugh in their face. They are just as guilty for wanting to profit instead of trying to find the good in the "evil" that was borne from their suffering.

I would release the results for free and ignore the opposing victims cries that they want to benefit from the plight. Their gift to humanity will be the end to those diseases...any materialistic gain would be laughed at and ignored.

[Atahualpa]

Hoho that is a quite sharp answer frankychan. I just used to emphasize a little evilness of the victims because the descision would all be too clear cut would they be the good ones.

People like LOTM probably get a bit angry by this, that's why I did not want it to link to nazis and past memories. At all you have to identify with the rescuer and not the victims and keep real world associations out.

Originally posted by Ming


We can't add a poll after the fact... if you really want a poll, start a new thread... Cut and paste... REMEMBER to add a poll this time... and I will delete the old thread when I see the new one. Best we can offer.

The power of the moderators declining

So what is your anwser?

Oerdin, I think in Heinz's case everything he can do, and obviously he has to do something (if his wife cannot steal the medicine for herself).. so everything Heinz can do would be wrong and thus he has to choose from the lesser of the wrongdoings. Saving a human life, but taking someone elses replenishable property is probably the least wrong thing to do. In any case, Heinz need to plead guilty after he gave the medicine to his wife.

These ethical questions will be very important when we have to implement them into robot brains (a long way into the future). Like Asimov already created the 3 (4) basic rules, but asimov's robot commit suicide or get severly damaged having to work against the rules. Humans don't take so much harm and it would not be feasible to commit suicide or report yourself to mental illness asylum everytime you cannot make a descision. Humanity needs the option to work against the rules at times or it could get stuck and not evolve. That should not be a blank cheque and that's why Heinz would need to submit himself to the police and plead guilty.

[Urban Ranger]

Use, no doubt about it. As Solver pointed out, what was done was done, and you can't undo it. So, take the silverlining and run with it.

I say the cure should be priced in a way that the most people can benefit from it. IOW, cheap for the Third World and more expensive for developed countried.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
So what is your anwser?

Not much of a dilemma here, either. It's not the doctor has suffered great losses, he merely made less money.

[Boris Godunov]

1) Should the husband, Heinz, have stolen the drug? Why/Why not?

If there was no other way to obtain the drug legally, yes. He should be prepared to pay a price for it, but if it saves a life, that's what matters.

2) What if the Heinz didn't’t love his wife? Should he have still stolen it?

I don't see why this makes a difference. Would he? Probably not. Should he? Yes.

3) If you were the doctor and discovered your office had been broken into, would you be as upset if you found the $1000.00 in the place of the drug?

If I was the selfish ***** that the doctor was, then yes, I'd probably be upset. But were I the doctor, the man would have gotten the drug without having to steal it in the first place.

[Zkribbler]

1) Should the husband, Heinz, have stolen the drug? Why/Why not?

It depends upon your definition of "should." If meant in the legal sense, then no, because the theft is a crime. If meant in the ethical sense then yes. The value of the wife's life is greater than the value of observing the laws against burglary, and the injury inflicted upon the doctor is minimal.

2) What if the Heinz didn't’t love his wife? Should he have still stolen it?

Yes. Whether he loves her or not has little impact upon the above equation.

3) If you were the doctor and discovered your office had been broken into, would you be as upset if you found the $1000.00 in the place of the drug?

I'd be upset about the burglary...it leaves one with the sense of being violated. I'd probably rationalize away the loss. "If the burglar had all the money, he'd have paid full price. But rather than go away, he stole a product which cost me $200 but left me $1000. I just made an $800 profit on a sale which I would not have otherwise made."

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Not much of a dilemma here, either. It's not the doctor has suffered great losses, he merely made less money.

What if he in turn needed the extra money for a medicine for his ill wife that some other doctor is holding tight for a lot more money?