Pre nd post adolscent Morality

[Straha]

Today I saw a documentary on teen age years and growth during that time. Something that I found really odd though was that they would tell teens and 7-11 year olds a story about a man whose wife was very ill, the one drug that could cure her was worth $200 but the pharmacy was selling it for $2000 dollars. So the man broke into the store and stole the drug.
Then they were asked if what the man did was right, and while almost all of the 7-11 year olds said that the man was wrong, the teen answers ranged greatly but stayed mostly in the he was right side of the scale. What do you think of that and do you think the man was right?

Also almost forgot but they found out that teens can barley recognize facial expresions of people they don't know.

[Master of Ossus]

That doesn't surprise me about the teens. I remember that when I was a teenager all of my schoolmates, with the exception of my friends, always mistook my grimaces for smiles, even when there was absolutely no reason for me to be smiling (ie. after I fractured my arm playing football, etc.).

[Darth Wong]

Today I saw a documentary on teen age years and growth during that time. Something that I found really odd though was that they would tell teens and 7-11 year olds a story about a man whose wife was very ill, the one drug that could cure her was worth $200 but the pharmacy was selling it for $2000 dollars. So the man broke into the store and stole the drug.

Then they were asked if what the man did was right, and while almost all of the 7-11 year olds said that the man was wrong, the teen answers ranged greatly but stayed mostly in the he was right side of the scale. What do you think of that and do you think the man was right?

Neither party is entirely right. However, the man is more right than the drugstore. Massively gouging consumers for life-saving drugs is utterly ruthless, immoral opportunism at its worst. However, theft is also immoral. The difference is that the former immorality disregards the sanctity of human life for $2000, while the latter disregards the sanctity of $200 worth of store merchandise for human life.

The reason the pre-pubescent children mostly say he's wrong is that they simply don't understand morality. They view it entirely in terms of rules (or "commandments"), not in terms of the ultimate goal of a system of morality, which is usually something like "promote justice and prevent suffering". Sadly, some people reach adulthood without ever gaining a real comprehension of morality, so that they continue to view it in terms of legalistic rules throughout their entire lives. Morality with loopholes.

[Joe]

If the drug was really worth $200 dollars there would be a pharmacy gladly willing to sell it to customers for that price. Why can't he go to a competing pharmacy?

[Jack Lain]

I remember these questions from high school.

What I remember being somewhat surprising was that the answers did not vary greatly between the smarties and the dummies.
What I mean by that, is that it didn't matter. Those students in AP and Honors were about equal with the academics and lowers. These types of moral questions - at least in my school - did not seem to be intellectually driven. They were simply answers based on what I now assume to be upbringing. Even the smart kids did not question anything. They repeated the same crap the teachers fed them. And I guess the same crap their parents fed them as well. At least they were smart in that regard - to regurgitate the teacher's book answers and spew forth crap that was deprived of any independent thought or motivation.

I think that morality and individuality (as a distinct sense of self, part of most humans) develops later in life for the average person. Average having nothing to do with intelligence in this situation. Somewhere around the late teens/early twenties we begin to really examine and ask rational questions. Most teens are either following the status quo or rebellious. Their ability to rationalize their answers is limited. They feel too much. This is why what he or she is doing seems so important. When later in life you realize, who gives a fuck what he or she is doing, you suddenly feel the freedom of independent thought. And the truth is, who really gives a fuck? If they disagree, so what? If they agree, thats great, but really, does it fucking matter? So what.

For all the teen readers who just got upset over this post? Fuck off. Somewhere about the time you turn 21 - 24 you will realize that I am right. Until you turn this age, fine dislike me. You are however still nothing more than a figment of your hormones and are either reactive or passive in your responses. Limited in your ability to make non-judgmental statements and decisions because of your upbringing or lack thereof, you will rarely take the time to examine why you think the way you do or question how you came about the decision you reached. Most of you are intellectually stunted. Accepting what those around you hold to be true and following one of the two camps. Acceptance or rebellion. I challenge you to be neither. Learn to think, don't simply memorize answers, even if you get a C, so fucking what. I tell you this, the University doesn't fucking care. Your guidance councilor is wrong. Nobody gives a shit about you high school grades when you reach college.

The sad thing is that I know many 40 year olds who are the same. Slaves to their emotions and basically idiots when it comes to understanding how and why they feel the way they do. Do not fall prey to the walking shit factory syndrome. You can be more than that, regardless of whether you believe in a creator or your own fingers and toes.

Ah, my soapbox. How I love standing on it. It is a weakness. Oh, and the few of you teens who actually read this (same statement for the 40 year olds) and consider you response before you post. Congrats. You are above the norm and just might be capable of independent thought.

[RayCav of ASVS]

I remember a morality test I did last year, involving a girl who failed to get into the cheerleader squad and was contemplating suicide. I fucked up the results by writing in my own answer: "Boink her to make her feel better"

[NapoleonGH]

This is an issue that we must delve into a tad to figure out the morality. I for one am a utilitarian and thus will be arguing from that standpoint, thus niether theivery nor price gouging is inherantly wrong, until one looks at the end result (for those who dont know utilitarianism is a philosophy that says that morality is doing what brings about the greatest amount of happiness/utility/good for the greatest amount of people, and that no act is wrong or right the only determiniation of right or wrong is whether the end result generates more life/happiness/utility/good than suffering/dearth/bad)

The man stealing the item to save his wife's life causes an immediate good by preventing her death. He also removes 2000 dollars of potential gain from the pharmacy, which could have serious repercussions if the pharmacy was very near bankruptcy, or could have very few if the pharmacy was prosperous. This means that whether or not the action was immoral depends on the financial status of the pharmacy because if this one act causes it to go out of buisiness or causes it to have to lay people off, people could starve or suffer a great deal because of his act, making the act potentially immoral. But if the pharmacy was in good financial waters his act would be moral because it would save his wife's life and not threaten anyone elses

[Bryan]

I find what the man did was wrong, but less wrong then what the durg store did.

I kinda agree with Darth Wong, sometimes the drug companies can be very opportunistic. However, we must also remember that the drug companies are paying hundreds of millions if not BILLIONS into researching these new life saving drugs.

Though I just watched John Q, which was a powerful movie, I still must side with the drug companies, though it is only a moderate position.

I was astonished to hear in the movie that HMOs pay doctors not to examine a patient, is this true?

[The Yosemite Bear]

I really dislike the Adolecent agangst pretend Existentialism.

the whole universe is against me because my parents want me to get a job yet they won't let me drink and have sex...

[Graeme Dice]

The drug is worth whatever people will pay for it, and not a cent less. Since people will pay $2000 for it, it is worth $2000, not $200. If it is really worth $200, then it will be available for $200 at some other location.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

The store is wrong for hiking up prices beyond anything he could afford. If they sold it at $200 in the first place, the man wouldn't have broken in. Of course, theft is a crime, and if he was able to, he should have driven to another store or something.

[Colonel Olrik]

I believe a moral solution could be:

-Assault the store during the night and minister the drug to his wife.

-In the morning of the next day present himself in the police station and take responsability for his crime.

I can imagine the faces of the jury while he's telling his story. In the end, even if the store insisted in pressing charges, I don't imagine him getting a big sentence. And the store would certainly face the contempt of the media and the population.

Err.. actually we GAVE that sir the medicine. Let bygones be bygones

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am 16 and at least think I have a reasonably firm grasp of what is right, wrong, or in some kind of grey area.

Aborion: under certain circumstances it can be a life saver. I personally do not support lated term abortion unless the mother s life is immediatly in danger. I Think this because it is more important in my opinion to protect existing life. This means if the mother would be put into dire financial or emotional straights by having a child, then have an abortion, or adopt. If you do have that aborton thouh just dont wait very long.

Homosexuality: do I even need to elaborate on this issue?

Death penalty: Again under some circumstances it is necessary. If the killer is someone like Jeffery Dohmer(sp) who kills, fucks, and then eats people, in that order. And the police have found bodies all over his home in various states of decomposition, then yes. Go ahead and kill him. If this is not the case however, our judicial system is not perfect. Mistakes are made, and innocent peopple should not be killed, if those mistakes convict someone of capital murder.

The list goes on

[Zoink]

I've had discussions about this very topic (I think it was the exact same one!) If I were in that situation:

I would steal the medication and do prison time.

I would place my right to life, and that of family as utmost important. I would supercede the "lesser" rights of other to protect that right.

However, we need the social system we have, one that punishes theft. It needs to remain intact. I would gladly do the time (although I would fight for reduced sentence, because our system says I can).

If the need to place your rights above others did not exist... war wouldn't exist. The U.S. placed the "right to life" of Afgan civilians (those killed accidently) below that of that U.S's need to protect itself from foreign attack. I can understand this. The alternative is to say "we can't bomb Afganistan because innocent Afgans might be killed".

[Colonel Olrik]

Still.. I'd like to see the faces of the jury while listening to the whole story..

The poor defenseless man saving his wife from the death the evil drug store had condemned her by raising the medicine price by 1000%

Not a chance of getting a big conviction..

[Sothis]

As a kid, I would have probably been too scared of stealing the drug (afraid of being caught by the police and locked away for years and years, as I believed was the sentence for all crimes as a kid). As a teenager, or as a 20 year old, I would do it, if it meant saying the life of someone I cared about.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

This hypothetical situation is just that--hypothetical. We do not know enough details to make an informed judgement as to the morality of either party. We certainly can sympathize with someone who steals what he cannot afford if it is a life-or-death situation (sounds like Les Miserables).

When it is stated that the drug is "worth" $200, what does that mean? If that is the going price, and the pharmaceutical company has suddenly hiked it to $2000, then I think it's obvious who is being more immoral. But in real life, it is unlikely to happen this way. More likely, $200 is what it costs the company to actually produce the drug. However, they must then factor in research costs (including the costs of research into other drugs that didn't work out, which are far more numerous than those that do).

They must also consider their patent rights; they have an exclusive right to their drug for X number of years after which the generic pharmaceuticals will be allowed to produce this drug as well thereby reducing the price of the drug (the generics don't have the burden of research--especially that of failed research). Therefore, their costs must be recovered within this timeframe.

Quantity of sales is yet another issue. For certain rare diseases, drugs are very expensive because there aren't very many patients, and so the price per patient has suddenly jumped as compared to a drug for something more common. Finally, pharmaceuticals need to make a profit. This is necessary for free-enterprise to work. Without profit, talented researchers will not be attracted into this field. Without profit, companies will go under. The issue, of course, is how much profit is fair?

In short, this test is too simplistic.