The Heinz deliema what is your moral obligation

-

OPTION “B”
“THE HEINZ DILEMMA”
IS Stealing Ever Morally justified in Certain Situations?  
Should Heinz steal the drug for his wife?  Why or why not? 
Is it ever right to steal something even if your wife’s happiness and life depended on it?   How far would you go to protect the people that you love? What is the goal of human lives? Is it to achieve the ultimate pleasure (happiness)? Is the goal of our human life supposed to be based on duties or the golden rule? If this is the case, then it means that humans’ actions, are rational only if these decisions and actions can be universalize. In other words, should our moral decisions only be based on the fact that a decision or behavior is intrinsically right, only if a person is willing to universalize their own behavior, so that all people can commit the same actions. On the other hand, do you think that our moral decisions and human behavior should be intrinsically wrong when and only if a person is not willing to universalize their own behaviors, so that all people can commit the same actions?  
There are two basic ethical models that evaluate human behavior and moral decisions based on happiness or pleasure (Utilitarianism), deontology which is based on duty, model.  Which of these models would justify Heinz actions of stealing the medicine? I think that Heinz is justified in stealing the medicine for his wife for many reasons, but it depends on which ethical model you use to justify  his actions. For example, in Utilitarianism, where human behavior is based on happiness or pleasure, stealing the medicine for his wife is morally right because his actions produces the greatest amount of happiness for him and his wife . This is despite that stealing is wrong. In Utilitarianism, the ‘end’ justifies the means   this means that Heinz’s end” getting the medicine to save his wife’s life medicine was justified by completing all the necessary to get the drug no matter what he what had to do reach his goal . This includes Heinz’s actions of stealing the medicine because he tried all other legal actions to get the money to pay for the drug, but he was only able to come up with 2000 dollars, and the drug was 4000 dollars. Therefore, Heinz did plan on stealing the drug from the very beginning; as a result he even tried to persuade the drug   dealer to lower the price of the drug. This is because the drug dealer found the drug, which only costs 400 dollars to make the drug and he was selling for 4000 dollars. This means that the drug dealer is morally wrong in selling the drug for three times more it is worth to Heinz and all of his other customers. The fact that the drug dealer was selling the drug for three times its price justified Heinz action of stealing the drug. In addition another reason that Heinz Is justified is the fact that he had no other options left, but stealing the  drug to get the medicine and save his wife’s life because the drug dealer refused to lower the price. This is because the drug dealer cared more about making a profit off the drug then saving people with it. As a result, Heinz was an Act Utilitarian because he focuses on one particular act of stealing the medicine to help his wife, which was the only option he had left at a time, so he made the right choice to steal the drug based on his current situation without referring to any moral rules. All these reasons mean that Heinz is not only justified   in stealing the drug for his wife, but he is also justified in stealing the drug for a person other than his wife or people who are sick, and in similar situations like his wife. Heinz’s actions are only justified under the model of Utilitarianism for two reasons. The first reason is that Utilitarianism is a form of ethical reasoning which looks forward to the ‘consequences,’ ‘results,’ or ‘outcomes’ of our behavior as the standard for what is ethically ‘good.  In other words Utilitarianism looks at the results of Heinz stealing the drug. The second and more Important reasons that Heinz actions are justified this model is ‘The Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) or Principle of Utility in Utilitarianism which states that actions are only good when they generates happiness for the greatest amount of people.  Therefore, in Utilitarianism Heinz’s actions are only   justified because the action of stealing the drug would produce the greatest amount of happiness for greatest amount of people in for “society.  
Heinz’s actions are not justified under the model of deontology which is based on duty.  This is because Deontology is a duty based ethical model. In this model ethical ‘rightness’ is discovered in the action itself. As a result  Heinz actions of stealing in of itself is intrinsically wrong so Heinz actions of stealing the drug is morally wrong, despite the fact that the drug  can save his wife’s life This does not matter because the model of Deontology is not looking at the consequences or outcome of actions. As an alternative, Deontology argues that you have a duty or obligation to act conformity with what is intrinsically right. The results, outcomes, consequences are irrelevant for ethical rightness; what is ‘right’ is so because of the intrinsic, inherent or innate MORAL WORTH. It is independent of any results accruing from the action. Unlike Utilitarianism in as Deontology Happiness are NOT the criteria it is second. Factor action will be right or wrong in its own nature. ‘right actions’ has intrinsic moral” in order words action are only rational If they pass the test of universeralabillity, if you, the moral agent, prior to doing what you are about to do, WILLING to make your action a universal law for every single human being? Are you willing to ‘reverse places’ with the one who is affected by your behavior principle of reversibility’ for example making stealing a drug universal for all people in society?  This would mean are you willing to trade places with Heinz’s wife who sick and then Heinz’s actions would be morally right If the answer is no, you ‘CAN NOT ’ steal the drug. If you ‘ought’ not to give yourself/ reverse pleasures, you ‘ought’ not to do that action, if the answer is yes, if you rationally will that everyone steal the drug. This is not rationally possible to make stealing universal because if everyone in society is stealing drugs, then would be anarchy and no social which means that there is no ethical code for human being 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Syria humanitarian Criss

-
  Islamophobia Adds to he Syrian Refugee Crisis  Racism has been reflected in discriminatory laws, practices, and actions (including violence) against racial or ethnic groups throughout the history of the United States. Since the early colonial era, White Americans have generally enjoyed legally or socially-sanctioned privileges and rights that have been denied to members of various ethnic or minority groups. European Americans have enjoyed advantages in matters of citizenship, criminal procedure, education, immigration, land acquisition, and voting rights. Before 1865, most African Americans were enslaved; since the abolition of slavery, they have faced severe restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms. Native Americans have suffered genocide, forced removals, and massacres, and they continue to face discrimination. European Americans, Hispanics, Middle Eastern, and Asian Americans, along with Pacific Islanders, have also been the victims of discrimination...
Read more

Free Palestine

-
 your passion intact while improving clarity, structure, and impact: --- # **Stop the Genocide in Palestine** The world must wake up to the genocide happening in Palestine. Israel is not the victim in this conflict—the Palestinian people are suffering daily under occupation, oppression, and relentless attacks. Yet, the media distorts the truth, painting Palestinians as terrorists while portraying Israel as the oppressed. This pattern reflects a larger issue: the media's reluctance to show the suffering of non-white populations and its role in reinforcing racist stereotypes. The media rarely gives full coverage to the struggles of marginalized communities—whether Native Americans, Chinese, Italian immigrants, African Americans, people with disabilities, or women, especially Muslim women. Stories of oppression and resistance from these groups are often ignored, manipulated, or framed in ways that dehumanize them. This systemic bias allows injustices, like the current massacre in Pale...
Read more

Refugee

-
 Educational Inequality for Refugees and Orphans in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Sudan: A Sociological Imagination Perspective  Introduction Education is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of any developed society. Yet, for millions of displaced children around the world—especially refugees and orphans in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Sudan—this right is consistently denied. These children face complex, intersecting barriers that prevent them from accessing quality education. Sociologist C. Wright Mills’ concept of the sociological imagination provides a critical framework for understanding how personal hardships—such as a child not attending school—are deeply connected to larger social forces like war, poverty, systemic racism, and political neglect. Thesis: Through the lens of the sociological imagination, we can better understand the educational inequalities faced by refugees and orphans in the Middle East and North Africa by examining how structural factors suc...
Read more