Philosophy and Ethics

In my Introduction to Electrical Engineering course today, the topic was Engineering Ethics. Given that I am (1) currently enrolled in a Philosophy course to satisfy my humanities requirement, and (2) plan to pursue an interdisciplinary minor in "Values, Law, and Policy," the topic was very interesting to me.

The prof started the discussion with the following micro case study:

"A woman dying from a rare disease must have an
expensive drug that her doctors think will help her. She
and her husband Heinz cannot afford the drug, in part
because the local pharmacist is charging ten times the
cost of producing the drug. The pharmacist has
invented the drug and remains its only source. Heinz
attempts to borrow the money but is able to raise only
half of what is needed. He asks the pharmacist to
reduce the price or to accept half now and the
remainder later, but the pharmacist refuses. In
desperation, Heinz breaks into the pharmacy and
steals the drug. Was Heinz's theft justified?"

At first my answer was that Yes, he unequivocally was justified in his actions. After all, if Wayne or any member of my family were in this situation, as bizarre as it is, I may have been likely to do the same thing. This study emphasizes a conflict between two of our core values: To uphold the law, and to protect human life - especially that of our loved ones - at all costs. I feel more of a personal responsibility to the latter than the former.

Then we began to get into all of the nuances of the situation. Did Heinz exhaust all possible resources before breaking into the store? How many times did he ask the pharmacist? We don't know. What were the consequences of his actions? By stealing the drug, did he prevent someone else from benefiting from its cure? Again, we don't know. The problem with Ethics is that many times there will be several factors which are unknown at the time that it becomes necessary to make the decision. Sometimes these answers cannot be known until after the decision has been made and the consequences realized.

By the time that we had discussed this in our groups and then again with the rest of the class, I wasn't so sure. I was ready to play Devil's Advocate and argue that the other side can be just as easily supported from the text. When someone is a part of a community, whether it is by virtue of his geographical boundaries, where he attends school, or membership in an organization, he enters a "social contract" to uphold the laws and rules of that community. If Heinz's theft were to be dismissed on the premise that it was the morally right thing to do, what will stop others from also breaking into the pharmacy to satisfy their own needs? It could turn into a slippery slope.

One of the things I learned in the philosophy course in this unit was about a group of pre-Socratic philosophers and traveling teachers called the Sophists. The most famous of this group was Protagoras, from whom the word Protagonist is derived. Protagoras believed that since it is not possible to know what is absolutely true, there is only one standard left by which to determine correct action: the standard of advantage (interest, expediency). If an action is advantageous to the individual, then it is good. This idea was sometimes employed by the unscrupulous to justify morally questionable behavior, but Protagoras apparently was opposed to an indiscriminate use of this principle. [source: Classics Technology Center] This gives historical support from one group that would have agreed with Heinz's actions. This is similar to the argument that just because something is a law doesn't mean that it's right.

From a conservative point of view, I'm torn on this issue. Maybe this is what they mean by Compassionate Conservative. In a general sense, I will always support obeying the law. It's when a specific case such as this one comes up that I seem to be willing to let emotions come into play and may seem to live by a different set of values. Both are well-intentioned, but both are not right.

A Christian point of view says that there is a definite right and wrong - that all issues are black and white and the only grey that exists is the result of our inability to understand or to deal with that black or white answer. This is why we need God to develop these answers for us. As Christians, we believe that only through Him and His word can we understand what is truly right and wrong.

The point of bringing this up is that it gets us thinking in the direction that there is more than one side to every story. It brings up many more questions for me that I'm sure will be further fueled by more studies in Philosophy.

So, a quick poll: leave comments about what your thoughts are.