I have some moral situations and I want to see what people think. I'll start out with a less earth-shattering one. (some of these will get pretty intense)

Someone you love dearly is horribly ill. They need a medication. You, however, have absolutely no way to purchase it. You cannot get a job, get a donation, beg money from someone, etc. The only way to ease your loved one's pain is if you steal the medication from the store.

Again, not an extreme one, those will come later.

And please, don't just worm your way out of it. The whole point is to see how people think morally and how they justify decisions.

athe answer to the question you pose is imple, steal the medication. Save your loved one.

But the question is fundamentally flawed, for it posits an unrealistic hypothetical and therefore offers little enlightenment.

You might as well ask if you were god would you save this person, because that's about as likely to happen.

Um yeah obviously I would steal it...if I felt really bad then when I actually had money I would go back to that store and leave it on the counter.

The question is more about condoning one thing for the sake of another. So, how far would you go? is the real question.
Another way to look at it is to pretend that you don't know the person or care for them at all. Would you still steal to save them?

A person's life, whether I know them or not, is still more important than a few dollars. I would still do it. Even if I don't care for the person there are others who do.

I wouldn't break the law for another person. It's my life.

I would have to agree here, espeically when the laws out there deals out some rather harsh punishment for shoplifting and stealing. some states fines you thousands of dollars, sometimes less than that... but still ten times more than the cost of the medication you would steal.

And... some other states puts you into jail for a long time.
If you had other loved ones to take care of, you wouldn't be there for them. If your sick loved one needed you at her/his side more than the medication... well, you wouldn't be able to be there for that person because you broke the law.

Sure, from a emitional standpoint it makes sense to steal something for a good case. But from the standpoint of the "Bigger picture", it's a very stupid move that could only give tempoarily relief. and then contine to worsen the situation.

One should only break the law for the sake of "good" if one is prepared to accept the consquences, and most espeically if they have thought about whenever it could hurt the affected people in your life or indirectly if you were to get caught red-handed.

If you honestly think that people will turn the other cheek if you play the "sympathy" card... or that you'll never get caught,

then you're no good than a common criminal regardless of your reasons. Even if it seemed like a good deed.

Nope, I don't steal it. Period. If I absolutely cannot get a job, a donation, or whatever, I still have no right to steal the medication. I will, however, take comfort in the knowledge knowing that since I have absolutely no way to raise the money for their medication, by extension I do not likely have enough money for basic necessities like food or rent, so I will be joining them in the hereafter once I die of either starvation or exposure.

I assumed that we couldn't procure money solely for the medication, and that we already had money--just couldn't use it in any way towards alleviating the sick. Damn. I'm showing signs of optimism.

If it's come down to the fact that I would be broke in such a situation, I would have to try to sell the body of the soon-to-be-dead loved one in hopes that I could better myself.

To be honest, yes I might hold up a pharmacy just to get that medication.

But if its another situation like the need for an organ transplant, I would gladly give away any of my organs even if it costs me my life if I want to save a person I love dearly.

Wait a minute. I think I saw that in a movie somewhere. John Q?


Then again, that is a LAST RESORT for me. You know what, with the increasing cost of living and declining wages, its not a surprise that some people would actually resort to doing "evil" just to make ends meet.

Look at any "hellhole" 3rd world country. Those who have guns use them to hold you up for food and money. Because they're barely getting enough to survive. In N. Korea for instance, everyone is starving. So if you are a soldier and your rations arent enough, and you got a gun. How will you get food to feed yourself and your family?

In the Philippines, its like a much worse version of USA (USA is heading there eventually dont worry). So you have all these cops and soldiers either taking bribes, or joining forces with criminal syndicates and the rebels. No wonder the security guards in the bank have at least a SHOTGUN. In some cases, they have an M-16 or an MP-5. Hopefully those arms could deter military-trained hold-uppers...

Money's money.

Now, the same issue could be raised just by restating the problem...I admit to being a bit anal-retentive about it (mainly because a moral quandary that has to be "rigged" to make it work isn't really a moral quandary...it's ideological entrapment).

Let's say that you are completely disabled, living on a stipend out of a trust fund that barely pays for your own necessities, and that these are paid for automatically so you never actually have access to your own cash. I could probably still argue that there are other avenues to scrape up some cash on the side, but that's readily dealt with by making the medication too expensive to purchase in any sort of timely manner.

In that sort of situation, I still would not steal the medication.

Oh really, our health care's that bad now?

Really not even to save your daughter or wife or mother?

That's cold. You either have wretched family members, a warped sense of justice or you have no clue how you would really react and are just bragging.

If it was for my personal benefit, I might consider stealing. However, I will be the one that will most likely face the legal ramifications (whether or not the medication would actually work, even if I could escape getting caught, etceteras), not the person who is sick and dying. And that just makes things worse, faster, now doesn't it?

However, I would certainly steal if and only if I could manipulate some other hapless soul into taking the fall for me. Might make it interesting.

I thought about my answer for a good half hour before I posted. I honestly can't see myself going to the aid of another human being by willingly breaking the law and putting myself at risk as well.

I can see an objection now: what if I was in that same position, and someone else had to steal medication as the only way to save me? I would think to myself, it would be nice if they would do such a thing for me, but I won't expect it of them. I'm asking them to potentially ruin their own lives for the, again, potential chance of saving my own.

Once again, the same situation will occur: both parties are now spinning much faster down the drain than they were before.

Another objection that can arise is thus: since, by the original post (Someone you love dearly is horribly ill. They need a medication. You, however, have absolutely no way to purchase it. You cannot get a job, get a donation, beg money from someone, etc. The only way to ease your loved one's pain is if you steal the medication from the store.), you're already in dire enough straits with no way to procure an income of any kind, why not steal? Your life is probably going to end soon as well. Think of this: if you steal the medication, also with this in mind, won't your loved one, for whom you stole, die cold and hungry with you? It's a loss-loss no matter how you look at it. You're both going to die, one way or the other.

So, what's the point? Using this flawed, as you said, hypothetical situation, I would most certainly opt to better myself. I would feel a twinge or two of regret, for sure, but that is secondary to the fact that either we both die together, or, more likely, I would find some way to survive. Simple as that.

I repeat with certainty: I will not ever put myself at risk just for the sake of another, especially in such a dire situation. If I can stay home and play games while my beloved cat, with whom I spent almost eighteen years of my life, is put to death, I'm sure I can show the cold shoulder some more.

Edit: And if, at some time in the future, this proves to not be the case, I will eat my old shoes--and post the pictures.

Is his daughter, or wife, or mother, more important or special than any other human being similarly in need? If not, then why not steal for them all? To say that one has the right --- or even moral imperative --- to steal in order to save one person's life, then all persons must perforce be equally worthy of such effort and one is acting immorally to give preferential treatment on basis of personal issues such as blood relation.

Now if I steal the medication wouldn't I be risking far greater harm to my loved ones than if I don't?
If I take it and get caught, that hurts them (and me) and they don't get the medication anyway.
Is this morality or a no win situation? What is the greater good? Being available to help your loved ones, or being in jail because you thought the quick fix of stealing was better than seeking to solve the long term probelm?
Do you really want to make your family go through a court trial?
It's a question of risk assessment and what is the greater good.

No, I wouldn't steal the medication. My loved ones need me beside them more than a medication and my being in jail. My getting arrested and all would cause a lot more pain than getting the medication would alleviate.

Steal it. It's not as hard as they'd like you to beleive.

Yes daughter, wife, mother, anyone i love dearly is worth the sacrifice of my freedom and even my life. But let's make this clear, I would fully expect to go to prison, and that would be a more than equitable trade in my opinion.

Soldiers and firemen sacrifice their life all the time and we call them heroes. To pine about losing your freedom, for how long do you think for simple theft/first offense anyway, when the life of a loved one hangs in the balance...I can't get my head around that.

Just before he dided, my Mom donated a Kidney to my father in an attempt to save him, at the risk of her own health which is now most certainly going to fail earlier. Some of you folks would deem her sacrifice foolhardy.

I have a moral question. It's a cliche, one that you've probably heard before.

Look at these two scenarios and answer the first one before you read the next one.

Scenario 1:

You're standing on a train station and you see a train coming. However there are three children playing on the tracks completely unaware of the approaching train. It's too far away to run or yell at the children and the train is automated and no one is around to stop it. You are however right next to a lever that will divert the train to another track but there is a worker working on those tracks. Changing the tracks would kill him.

Would you or would you not pull the lever.


Scenario 2:

Same situation with the children and the train except that there is no lever or second tracks. In front of you however is a person who's standing next to the tracks. If you push him on to the tracks and kill him, the automated system will engage the brakes and thus save the children.

Would you or would you not push the man.

no, on either scenario even if they were my own kids. because i could never reconcile taking an innocent life for any reason, even to save someone.

See, some might argue that you're killing three people instead through inaction. Many would say yes to scenario 1 since your only flipping a switch and thus not directly killing the other individual but most people refuse to go through scenario 2 even though you're practically doing the same thing.


Well now here's a hard one. Your country's being invaded. Regardless of whether your country's winning or not, there's heavy conflict in your region and the enemy is rounding up everyone they find to have them shot. You are in a basement with refuges and you are carrying your own child in your arms. Enemy soldiers come to search the area but fail to search the basement and are about to leave. Suddenly your baby wakes up and starts crying. All attempts to calm it fails and the soldiers are about to walk within earshot of the cries.

Will you or will you not smother your child in order to save yourself and everyone else in the room?

I know this is a very evil question but there are examples of parents needing to do such drastic measures during wartimes.

Pull the lever. Unless he's a complete idiot he'll be looking around for trains while working on tracks. He'd dive out of the way.



I'd step on the tracks to engage the brakes then step off.

Wait, why does this section have a sensor brake but the one the children are on doesn't?



Sure, not like that's a guaranteed death for him.

Actually the brakes engage when it runs over something. Or it derails killing everyone in it. You decide. Bottom line, your answer doesn't work.



Well, normally when your dealing with a small infant smothering it will likely kill it.

Ha ha. I'm getting rid of all your positive spins.

There has to be an object on the train station that will work. Wait, so the kids are on the track directly in front of you but out of earshot?



You don't need to smother it to death, just cover his mouth 'til they walk away.

The kids are not in front of you, the guy you can push is. Kids are further away but the train will reach them faster then you. And there's not enough time to find anything else to throw in it's way.


If you're merely holding it's mouth then it will still make plenty of noise. There's a good chance that you'd have to be more drastic than that.

It's just a silly hypothetical question that doesn't need to be dissected to death. If you do A, B will happen.

I know it's silly but the questions are designed to check people's reaction to certain scenarios not to figure out other possible solutions.

That incident was in the last episode of M*A*S*H. Think about the trauma it caused Hawkeye as a witness telling her to shut up the child in addition to the anguish of the mother. In a situation like that the others would be staring at you and with all their lives at stake, what do you do?

Each scenario is a question of the greater good. Do you trade one life for three, and do you trade your child's life for how ever many refugees there are.

I personally don't believe in no-win scenarios as there is usually a way around them no matter what anyone may say. In that respect I'm like Kirk with the Kobyashi Maru There is usually something in each situation that allows a way out and alleviates that horrible choice.

Being a combat-trained leader (yippee the Army and me) I know to chose the greater good. One life for three is sometimes necessary. As far as the baby, I'd rush up and give myself and the child up to divert the soldiers away from the rest. I would not be able to bring myself to just sacrifice the baby. I'd sacrifice myself too.

Fine, I'd jump on the track.



All right, bye bye baby.

exactly what I said, only much more eqoluent. =D

Not to meition... there's tons of home remedies that works suprisingly well in place of expensive medication.
Take allegeries for instance... I have some of the worst allegeries out there, and it can actually prevent me from breathing well or even see properly.
so I drink and eat a lot of things that has Vitatim E in it. Why? because Vitamin E has anti-allegeric properities. As an result, I don't have to take a lot of meds, because having at least 400g of vitmain E daily over four to six weeks keeps my body strong against most Allegeries (won't cure it though, so sometimes pills are needed). It's gotten to the point where the worst I suffer now is a mere runny nose and red eyes, instead of the times where I would panic because I wasn't able to breath at all.

I also had a relative who had Coronary Heart Diease. This is an diease which can result in fatality if not treated. Anyway, it turns out that Grapes, Honey, Onions, Vitamin E and C was all very effective in helping people with this Diease. And it just so happened that he loved dishes that had onions and or honey in it. He also loved Grapes, so he was able to eat those in morderate amounts and live for a long time until he died of old age, without depending too much on meds.

Sure, sometimes meds are the only way to save somebody's life.... but in that case, how do you know if those meds are really the only way to save somebody's life? Sometimes one have to take a step back, and reserech into the other ways you could save that loved one.

For the baby scenario, the soldiers already heard something, they're going to come down anyway, so I wouldn't smother the baby.

For the train scenarios, I'd leave the kids to their own devices. Natural selection at work.

No they didn't.



Why does everyone think we have a need to evolve? We're at the top of our game basically.