Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Difficult Situation

Rate this topic


bicklevov

Recommended Posts

There would be only one way to proceed in a situation like that. Assuming that the medicine could be stolen, then the doctor does not value it's inventory enough to have the proper security systems and guards in place to protect it. Combined with the fact that my wife's life would take precedence over everything else, and that the theft of the medicine did not result in another person that paid for it to use for a dying loved one not being able to have it, I would steal it. I would also, accept the consequences that came with that act, and within the confines of a society with a court system and criminal law, would turn myself in after taking it and getting it to my wife. I could live for a period of time in prison knowing that I did what I thought I had to do, and would pursue any legal means available to secure the funds needed to pay for it once my liberty was restored and I was back in society again. No amount of ethical philosophical debate would convince me not to do it.

And, given the current state of statism that we live in today, the same scenario could be presented, with more detail as to the origins of the life saving medicine being described above. Would the act of taking it in an effort to save one's spouse be less of an ethical problem if within the parameters of a statist society bordering on socialism: it could be determined that the doctor secured all of the funds he attended medical school with from "government" grants and money, then obtained a large amount of money from the state to research and develop such a drug, and then at the time it was stolen was administering it primarily to patients that received medical vouchers from the government to see that doctor. Assuming all of those factors existed, then does that doctor truly own the drug that would be needed to save a spouses life. I'm sure in that scenario, the man stealing it if he had time to do a thorough accounting of all the taxes he had paid in his life up until that point, it would show that he had already indirectly "paid" for the drug a few times over already.

Edited by jws1776
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I take that concrete to the next step, still in the midst of a Katrina-type event. I imagine there is no store available, only a neighbor. However, he has not abandoned his home. He is there with his two days supply of food, while I have none. I ask him to give me some. He says he's sorry, but he needs it for his own family. Now what?

...

The obvious example that comes to mind is poverty: can poverty be used as a justification for trying to gain something by force, when non-poverty could have solved my problem? If so, what kinds of things: life-saving drugs? but, what else? Food? Clothes? Shelter? Other concretes start to come to mind. If a loved one has a debilitating illness that will cost a few millions, does that justify stealing? and so on.

The search for the razors continues.

As you point out, the "Katrina" aspect of this scenario is not really essential. Broken down, the question is, does someone else's passive refusal to provide for my needs morally justify the elimination of their rights as they pertain to me. If a society believes that to be true, dictatorship is probably not far away. That can't be true or it pertains to all manner of difficult circumstances and makes civilization impossible.

For it to be true, then, the other factors of the particular context would need to be the cause of rights no longer existing and not someone's needs or wishes. As in a dictatorship where rights have already been eliminated, for example, or in a situation where death is or can be imminent for other reasons. By imminent, I mean minutes, not days or months. So you will or might die at any moment.

In the situation with the "greedy doctor" above, 30 days gives you considerable time to try and attempt another alternative. Maybe pay someone else on better terms with the doctor to buy the medicine for its normal price or auction off your house, take out loans or find an alternative approach to treating the illness which you can afford. As the day looms closer and death becomes close enough that no time exists for alternatives, there might exist a point at which theft(which necessarily includes the possibility of killing someone else and dying to keep your values) might become the amoral thing which you can personally choose, but I have trouble imagining an actual total context where I could justify it to myself.

It would need to be pure bad luck, where nothing I did caused my inability to take care of it honestly, the medicine was certain to save her life, as with an antidote to poison, no other possibilities for action existed, and some immorality on the part of the victim or society at large could justify it. So if the pharmacist was Walmart, who uses eminent domain to steal property, then I would find it more palatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be only one way to proceed in a situation like that. Assuming that the medicine could be stolen, then the doctor does not value it's inventory enough to have the proper security systems and guards in place to protect it.

I'm not sure that I understand your meaning here. Are you implying that because something is able to be stolen, it is morally justifiable to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I understand your meaning here. Are you implying that because something is able to be stolen, it is morally justifiable to do so?

No, but anything that is actually valuable is either secured in a way that it cannot be stolen. Security system, guards, etc. If the medicine that is needed is actually that valuable then there would be no practical way to steal it, and the entire issue is over. Assuming it could be stolen and was needed by my wife, I would steal it if it was possible to steal it. Within the scenario given, if that type of medicine was in fact something that valuable, then I don't understand why it would be possible to even gain access to it and take it. But yeah, I would take it, if my wife's life depended on it, but then I wouldn't be married to just some woman that I got along with, and enjoyed being around. It would be a woman who if she ceased to exist would cause me incredible emotional pain, so the act of taking it would be extremely selfish on my part. In saving her life, I would be saving a part of mine that I would not want to live without.

Edited by jws1776
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...