|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:31 pm
Looking at everything..... (as in, what everyone has said, and the twist), I believe that no one is justified.
For the pharamist, using all of his resources to make one drug is highly inconsiderate, seeing as those same resources could have been used multiple times to help others. And, if this village is in such a state of economic turmoil, I doubt all of his resources cost a quarter of a million dollars. Yes, I know that the man's running a business, and he needs the money for a relative's operation, but a shipping off to this mysterious city shouldn't cost 250,000 dollars.
For the man/woman, however justified it may be, emotionally, to take that medicine to save the spouse's life, it still goes against the rules set up by society. I'm sure that, that one particular family was not the only set of people in a bad situation, especially considering the state of the entire village. There could have been others who also needed that medication, hell, maybe even a little child, now without a future. Also, the likeihood is very high this person will be caught and punished, and that will do little good with your poor family and still recovering spouse, who would have no way to support the family anymore. Stealing something of that worth, no matter how inflated, will be meant with a good amount of jail time, and even after getting out, and this person will then have the stigma of being a thief, and by horribly mistrusted.
For both of them: I'm sure there was more than one solution out of their situations. Perhaps someone in a neigboring village? Or somewhere in this mysterious city, they could have found genorisity and help. There is always more than one solution to everything....
*I'm done now. XD*
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:51 pm
oy this is making my head spin...ok the way i see it they both were in the wrong...from what i've read neither the pharmacist or the man really tried to communicate with the other all that much...it was wrong for the man to steal it but the pharmacist should have done the same as the man and worked to earn money instead of putting the antidote at such an unreasonable price...if i had to chose a side i would go with the man cause at least he tried working to get it first instead of taking advantage like the pharmacist did 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:59 pm
Pancakes...
His crime would have been justified if he just paid the amount of money needed for the pharamist's resources >__<. Also, what really gets my head is why the pharamist would use ALL his resources to make one drug for one patient neutral
...are Yummy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:52 am
y u n i e
Pancakes...
His crime would have been justified if he just paid the amount of money needed for the pharamist's resources >__<. Also, what really gets my head is why the pharamist would use ALL his resources to make one drug for one patient neutral
...are Yummy
marshjazz Also with this I have to bring up that stealing is against the law, but it isn't against everyone's morals. Morals are different for everyone. There isn't a set of them that everyone shares, so you can't say anyone was morally wrong technically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:35 pm
Was it right: NO!!!! but only in one sense!!! Stealing, and Murdering are the worst things you can commit in your life.
in another point of veiw.your wife is totally sick wat can u do rathet than watch her suffer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:43 pm
-Nycus- marshjazz Also with this I have to bring up that stealing is against the law, but it isn't against everyone's morals. Morals are different for everyone. There isn't a set of them that everyone shares, so you can't say anyone was morally wrong technically. It isn't against Robin Hood's morals to steal from the rich and give to the poor. That was what I was going for. Murder isn't against a serial killers morals. For another example: Some people think killing a fetis is morally wrong, I don't. It is just a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:18 am
Morality has nothing to do with majority. Morals don't exist. They're arbitrary values that everyone makes up on their own or has someone/something make up for them because they prefer not to think for themselves. Laws and social propriety have to do with majority; morals, not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:16 pm
nosh276 Morality has nothing to do with majority. Morals don't exist. They're arbitrary values that everyone makes up on their own or has someone/something make up for them because they prefer not to think for themselves. Laws and social propriety have to do with majority; morals, not so much. Thank you for restating what I just said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:25 pm
I can go both ways. In my mind, if the man were to leave the sum of money he owes for the medicine where the drugist could find it, then there technically is no crime (since he's paid for the medicine).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:01 am
Norayr dieux Norayr dieux No, it wasn't justifiable. He could have tried many other things in order to convince the pharmacist or make the money, but insted he chose to steal it.
Tis a no-no. The drug-man wasn't going to give it up no matter what. Unless the complete sum was paid.
Still a no. Even if the Pharmacist was a completely greedy b-tard a**, what would it matter? He still used up all of his rescources for it. He still deserved the right amout of money for what he made.
So you're telling me you're going to let your spouse die in bed that night? Need I remind you you really love this person. Could you also try to give an argument for the other side of your story, just to get your brain movin'? Regardless of how much you*love* your spose, it doesn't deny that a crime is being comitted. If a man walks in on is wife being raped and he kills the man out of rage, and love for his wife.. does that make his crime okay? No. A crime is a crime regardless of the situation involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:57 am
This one's interesting. Hmm.. the act of stealing it is wrong, but pricing it so high is also wrong.
I think the man should've been able to work out a deal with the pharmacist. If he gave half the money, and got the antidote, he could've paid him back.
I disagree with the pharmacist. While the hubby can still pay him back, how would the pharmacist have sold that medicine for such a high price? Many people are selfish, and some would rather have a family member die than pay for something of that value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
