Would You Steal In this situation?

[Caesar517]

Unless of course he could convince Congress to bail him out.

 

[ribozyme]

I think stealing is not justified in the senario provided.

I believe that if the medicine in question were to fall under the category of ordinary means to keep a person alive (food, water, basic medicine) then it would be justifiable, as a person can never morally be deprived of this.

The medicine in question, however, doesn’t not fall into that category. It is extraordinary means – a new and expensive technology.

I think it wouldn’t be justifiable partially do to iteration:

Apply this to a larger real-world example. Lets say a scientist develops an expensive cure for particularly nasty deadly disease. There are 500,000 people in the country who will die if they do not recieve the cure very soon (this is a continuing disease – people are still catching it). The cure is so expensive than only a few of them can afford it. The rest decide that it is morally permissible to “steal” the cure in order to live. As a result, the scientist loses large amounts of money and goes bankrupt.

The same thing happens for a different disease. The developer went bankrupt because people were “stealing” it to survive.

This happens a thid time for yet another cure/disease.

As a result, people stop investing in medical R&D. With no funding, the few who are still willing to work towards developing new cures are not able to. Thus, significant medical advancement effeectively stops.

Consider the alternative:

When the first cure is created, those who can afford it purchase it and the rest decide that it is not justifiable to “steal” it. As a result, they die. When investors see this amazing new cure and the obvious need for it on the market, they invest in it. Since the scientist did not lose any money, he is able to up-scale production with the new finances. As his rate of production increases, his cost of producing each unit of the cure decreases. Thus, the price of the cure begins to fall. As time progresses, an increasing number of people infected with the disease are able to afford the cure. Eventually, the disease becomes moot.

The same thing happens with the next cure/disease combination.

Again, there is yet another cure/disease combination on the market. With increased financial projections in the medical technology market due to stability, more investors are encouraged.

As this process continues, cures start to become cheaper more quickly (more willing investors).

“Stealing” the cure seems to cause a collapse of the medical R&D market. It saves lives in the short run, but is very detrimental to society in the long run.

Not “stealing” the cure seems to allow more death in the short-run, but saves many more in the long run.

That is why I don’t think “stealing” the cure would be justified. Thoughts?

One objection to that is you can allow the drug to be subsidized through government programs which would give access to those who couldn’t pay for it, and it will remunerate the development costs.

 

[Caesar517]

One objection to that is you can allow the drug to be subsidized through government programs which would give access to those who couldn’t pay for it, and it will remunerate the development costs.

That would defeat the purpose of the hypothetical situation – then there would be no need to “steal” the cure.

 

[Wirraway]

That would defeat the purpose of the hypothetical situation – then there would be no need to “steal” the cure.

there wouldn’t be a cure to steal without some assurance of property rights.

 

[ribozyme]

That would defeat the purpose of the hypothetical situation – then there would be no need to “steal” the cure.

I suppose if it was a cure, I suppose stealing would be justifed especially if the drug has a low *marginal cost *of production. If it is something that only extends life by about a month (as with some real chemotherapeutic agents out there), probably not. I do not know what the boundaries would be for an effect.

Maybe tiered pricing would be a fair way to resolve this; the wealthy pay a higher price to subsidize the development costs.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

I tend to agree with Contarini’s reasoning.

In legal terms, tough cases make bad law. The same is true here, I think. It’s like how the pro-choicers talk about 12 year olds who’ve been raped by their retarded brothers. Sad as it is, the unborn isn’t responsible and shouldn’t pay the price. But even a lot of pro-lifers stumble on this sort of question [which is, thank God, incredibly rare].

But stealing isn’t the same as murder-- the person you steal from can be ‘made whole’. Plus, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a jury that would convict you under such circumstances.

Aside from that: even if it were considered a sin, after I’d tried [and failed with] every legitimate means to aquire the drug [offering payment over time, non-monetary payment, etc], I would take the drug, assume the sin onto myself, and use the drug to save someone I love.

In fact, I think the best approach would be to write a confession to the druggist, mail it, the first $1000 and a promise to pay the rest just before I stole the drug. I’d give the drugs to the woman, and turn myself in to the police.

 

[Wirraway]

…
In legal terms, tough cases make bad law. …
But stealing isn’t the same as murder-- the person you steal from can be ‘made whole’. Plus, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a jury that would convict you under such circumstances. …

why is this a tough case? the hypothetical assumed that a crime would be committed. there is nothing doubtful about this at all.

you are confusing the cime with the appropriate punishment because you believe, wrongly, that the reason the crime was committed is material to the question of whether the crime was committed.

crimes are public offenses, as well as private matters. the criminal can make the victim whole by paying restitution, and this is commonly a part of the sentence. but the public has a right to punish the criminal.

the level of punishiment to be meted out after conviction is something that appropriately considers the **reason **for the crime. in a typical penal code, there is a range of possible punishments. stealing to save a life is still stealing, but it can be punished at the lighter end of the scale.

but punished it must be.

 

[mh2007]

Reasonable is subjective, of course, but I think it should be what makes good, and common sense to you.

 

[Wirraway]

Reasonable is subjective, of course, but I think it should be what makes good, and common sense to you.

in the typical formulation under the law, “reasonable” is measured by an objective standard.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

Clearly, stealing is always a crime, though as I stated, I doubt you would ever get a conviction in this situation. In fact, I doubt you’d find a prosecutor willing to bring the case, ‘punished it must be’ or not. Our system offers a wide range of lattitude and discretion to police officers, prosecutors and judges, bringing a touch of humanity and common sense to the written rule of law

But is stealing always a sin?

Much like the hypothetical case of a 12 year old, pregnant by way of incestous rape, the original question has been crafted to make it seem that stealing, in this instance, might be morally acceptible.

The information Contarini posted seems to indicate that St. Thomas Aquinas may have felt that theft in this sort of situation is actually not a sin.

My post was an effort to answer the question in the terms it was asked: What I would do in such a situation.

 

[Wirraway]

Clearly, stealing is always a crime, though as I stated, I doubt you would ever get a conviction in this situation. In fact, I doubt you’d find a prosecutor willing to bring the case, ‘punished it must be’ or not. Our system offers a wide range of lattitude and discretion to police officers, prosecutors and judges, bringing a touch of humanity and common sense to the written rule of law … . .

I could get a conviction.

the unlikelihood that a layman could actually treat a patient with stolen radium makes the explanation implausible. I’d put an oncologist on the stand and explain what radiation therapy actually entails: precision doses, beam projection, injections, insertions, point out that therapy is given under strict supervision by medical specialists and that defendant’s explanation is just hooey …

if the defendant made no attempt to finance the procedure by methods other than theft (asking social services or charities) or had assets other than cash (“don’t you own a 72” HD TV, Mr. Defendant?", “what kind of car do you presently own?”) …

if the defendant pulled a nighttime burglary of the chemist’s home putting himself, the chemist and the chemist’s wife and child at risk because the chemist kept a loaded shotgun at bedside (which is one reason why burglary of a residence is punished so heavily) …

if the defendant made no attempt at restitution before he was caught …

if the defendant never acknowledged that he committed at least theft of some sort…

it is beyond unlikely that the cops would turn a blind eye to a major felony. I have dealt with prosecutors who’d love a case like that, knowing that if the defendant took the stand they could shred the explanation and the court would instruct the jury not to consider the reason the defendant stole as to whether a crime was committed.

anyway, speaking as a defense counsel, the case would never go to trial. the government would do what it always does and overcharge the offense (at least burglary and grand theft with a bail amount the guy would never meet), and, given the stated facts of the situation, would likely plead it down to something both sides and the court could live with. but you never know, prosecutors love piling on.

the latitude you’re speaking of exists, here, as a mitigating factor in punishment. again, the hypothetical started with the concession that a crime had been committed.

 

[Pong]

The Heinz Dilemma. Classic. It is interesting to see how this scenario was used in it’s original purpose and how the test subjects responded to the dilemma. Although, I must admit, I do disagree with the conclusions reached by Kohlberg as to the moral development of the female mind.