http://idontlooktired.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] idontlooktired.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] fandomhigh2007-08-17 05:02 pm

Applied Ethics A & B: Fourth Period [17.08]

Harriet had sent out a handwavy email, telling the students that the two classes would once again be combined. Once everyone had arrived, she smiled and stood up. "We'll be together again next week, and since we'll be fairly busy, I thought we'd have an easy day today. So I'm going to tell you a story.

In a small town, in a country with no public health system, a man was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save him, 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 ten times what it cost him to make the drug. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug.

The sick woman's wife, Joan, went to everyone she knew to borrow the money, but she could only get together about $1,000, which is half of what it costs. She told the druggist that her husband was dying and asked him to sell it a lower price or let her pay it later.

But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Joan got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for her husband.*


Now, that's the story. It's a rather unfortunate situation, that, thankfully, never happened, but it does raise some interesting issues." She passed around some questions--

(1) Should Joan have done that? Was it actually wrong or right? Why?
(2) Is it a wife's duty to steal the drug if she can get it no other way? Would a good wife do it?
(3) Did the druggist have the right to charge that much when there was no law actually setting a limit to the price? Why?
(4) If you were Joan, what would you have done?
(5) If you were the druggist, would you have sold the drug for half-price?


--then returned to sit behind her desk. "I'd like you to answer those, either individually or you can pair up and discuss them. Next week is our last week, and we'll be taking what we've learned and putting it into practice. I hope you'll enjoy it."

[*This scenario was developed by Lawrence Kohlberg, a psychologist who studies moral development. See his The Philosophy of Moral Development (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), although I swapped the sexes around.]

[OOC: Just a simple class this week, as I'm AFK much of the day, and not much explanation needed, I think...and I can't believe I just used a footnote.]


[ETA: Now with mistakes fixed. *facepalm* Thank you to the sharp eyed person who pointed them out. Sorry about that.]

Re: Answer/discuss the questions

[identity profile] palestshadow.livejournal.com 2007-08-17 10:31 pm (UTC)(link)
"Perhaps he needs that money to give his ailing wife an operation. You can't know." Naminé shook her head. "Sometimes I think you need to throw out the rules and do what has to be done, but I'm not certain you can call yourself morally justified. Who are you to say that your decision is the right one? Not that I think you shouldn't. I think in some cases, you have to, but you should know that ... that you may be doing wrong, and if so, you'll have to pay the consequences."

Re: Answer/discuss the questions

[identity profile] girlzippo.livejournal.com 2007-08-17 10:43 pm (UTC)(link)
"Consequences," Charlie said slowly. "Yeah. And make sure you're the only one paying them, if you can help it." She sighed. "I mean, if I were the druggist, I would have sold it for half price. And sure, he had the right to charge that much, even though it was rotten of him. But you're right, maybe he had a huge dream or a huge problem and that money was going to solve it for him."

Re: Answer/discuss the questions

[identity profile] palestshadow.livejournal.com 2007-08-17 10:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Naminé lifted a shoulder. "If I were the druggist, I would have given it to him. Except it's too easy to say that. If you were the druggist, you'd know why he said no. And from there it's murky. If it's wrong for the druggist to deny the drug to anyone whose life it will save, what about anyone whose life it will improve? Or anyone who would like it very much."

She shook her head. "I think perhaps I'm not very good at ethics."

Re: Answer/discuss the questions

[identity profile] girlzippo.livejournal.com 2007-08-17 11:03 pm (UTC)(link)
"No, I think looking at all sides of a problem is a good way of dealing with ethics." Charlie looked thoughtful. "Maybe the key is consistency. Applying the same rules to everyone, with exceptions only for each circumstance that really, really demands it. Not because of money or whether you like them, or whether it's convenient?"