Heinz’s Dilemma - Grade: A PDF

Preview

Summary

Heinz's Dilemma...

Description

PHIL 102 Heinz’s Dilemma

Morals: a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. Some would argue one thing as morally acceptable and ethical while another person would argue the same thing as completely immoral and unethical. What is considered right or wrong varies from person to person. Whether they know it or not, most people use one of the five ethical paradigms when making a decision as to what is and is not ethically acceptable. Consider this: Your wife is dying of cancer and there is only one drug known that may save her life. This drug is produced for about $200 by a specific druggist. The drug is then sold by the druggist to the public for $2000. You can’t come up with all of the money and the druggist refuses to reduce the cost of the drug. What do you do? This situation was presented to Heinz in Europe. Is it morally acceptable for Heinz to steal the drug for his wife? The idea of theft is perceived as wrong, but consider the circumstances of this ethical dilemma. According to situational ethics, or the manifestation of love, Heinz was definitely moral by stealing the drug for his wife. While natural law would state that the act of stealing is wrong regardless of the circumstances, situational ethics states that Heinz may steal the drug for his wife out of the manifestation of love. While natural law and situational ethics definitely contradict for this situation, utilitarianism, or the act that yields the most good for the most amount of people, can be argued on either side of the spectrum. By stealing the drug for his wife, Heinz definitely yielded a great amount of good for his wife. Heinz provided his wife with the only drug that could potentially

PHIL 102 save her life. On the other hand, the druggist did not benefit from the theft of the drug, in fact, he lost money. Utilitarianism would definitely agree that there was a great amount of benefit for one person by stealing the drug, but there was also loss encountered for another person. Utilitarianism lacks for this situation because it is difficult to determine who benefited. It can be argued that although there was a financial loss for the druggist, a life was potentially saved. It may also be argued that no good was gained from the theft of the drug due to the legality of theft as well as the financial loss of the druggist. In my opinion, situational ethics is definitely the more ideal paradigm for this specific situation. Since there are only three people involved, utilitarianism makes it extremely difficult to depict the “majority.” Utilitarianism is also flawed for the situation because it is tough to determine who yielded the most amount of good. A life was potentially saved but at the unwanted cost of the druggist. While it is generally agreed that a life is worth more than any amount of money, utilitarianism does not take this into account therefore it is not the most effective paradigm for this situation. Situational ethics takes into account the various circumstances concerning the situation to determine the morality and ethics of a decision. According to situational ethics, it was completely ethical for Heinz to steal the drug. The drug was stolen out of the manifestation of love for his wife. Without the drug, the chances of death for Heinz’s ill wife were significantly higher. The financial burden acquired by the druggist due to the loss of the drug is outweighed by the hopes of saving a life. In conclusion, I believe that Heinz made an ethical decision. The financial loss for the druggist was a small price to be paid in exchange for the treatment of a fatal disease....