This is a hypothetical question my mother asked me as part of a psychology course she is taking. I found it very thought provoking, and thought you would also!<p>In Europe, a woman is near death from a specific type of cancer. There is one drug that the doctors know will save her. It is a prescription discovered and developed by a local druggist in the same town. The drug is very expensive to make but the druggist is only charging ten times what the drug costs for him to make. In other words, it costs the druggist $200 to make this wonder drug and, in turn, he turns about and charges $2,000 for a single dose of the drug. The cancer-riddled woman's husband, Heinz, goes to everyone he knows to borrow the money, but he can only get together $1,000, half of what it cost. He goes to the druggist and shows him the $1,000, explaining that his wife is dying. Heinz then pleads with the druggist to sell the drug for the $1,000 or let him pay later. The druggist denies Heinz’s request with, "No! I discovered the drug. I should make money from it. I cannot simply give it away. If you cannot pay for it, others can." Heinz becomes desperate. He waits for nightfall and breaks into the druggist’s store with the idea to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have broken into the store and stolen the drug? (Kohlberg, 1963)<p>Here is my answer:<p>Thats a good one. I think it is all about perspective. From the perspective of the law, no, he should not have. It is against the law to steal. But, from my perspective. The man surely knew by then, that he was going to be breaking the law in stealing the medicine. So, knowing that, if he still chose to accept the potential consequences of his action and steal the medicine for his wife. I don't think that it is wrong at all. Doing the opposite would be against human nature.<p>Love you,
Rob