This was a question posed to pre-school kids, and I thought it quite interesting.

A poor man's wife is very sick. She will die if she does not get treatment. The man robs a bank to get money for her treatment. Is he right or wrong?



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My own opinion:

On one hand, the man is morally right to take measures to save somebody's life. On the other, he is wrong because he is forcibly taking over what is not his. So it's a morally ambiguous situation, and one cannot label him definitely as either.

Nevertheless I think such a situation would tell us more about the society we are in rather than the moral calibre of the so-called "criminal". What sort of society denies treatment to a person simply because he/she cannot pay up? Should the value of life be judged by the economic capacity of the person, i.e, is a rich man's life far more valuable than that of a poor woman's ?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


What do you think ?

I think this is less about "right/wrong" then it is about "responsibility".

How does he view his responsibilities?

Does he bring a loaded gun?

What would his wife think about being saved by bank robbery? What if someone is wounded?

Will the man surrender to the law after his wife's treatment is ensured/complete? (Should he? Would that be "letting down his wife", as well?)

Whatever he does (or doesn't do) has consequences, and he'll have to weigh them. He may be wrong with the assessment of consequence, or his decision may be in conflict with prevalent ethics systems.

People do what they do, and generate consequence in the process. So, who do we turn to for our responsibilities? Is there a hierarchy?

Yourself? Your family? Your friends? Your country/king/god?

Where you place your emphasis determines your personal "right/wrong". This may clash with another perspective. The question, then, is: who decides on the "proper hierarchy of responsibility"? And is the man allowed to disagree? (Warning: you can forever play that question game: Who says wether he's allowed to disagree? etc.)

To me, there is no absolute instance of "right/wrong". All I can say is this:

By placing his responsibility to his wife (or to himself, in case he knows his wife wouldn't approve of a bank robbery to save her life, but he can't live with letting her die) above his responsibility to the bank and its customers, he doesn't make that responsibility go away. He'll have to deal with it in some way (surrender to the law, hope they won't catch him...).

I do think that's the way to look at it: where do you place your allegience? Who do you respond to, according to your morals?

In short; to answer that I'll have to know more about the situation (about the man, his wife, the bank and what a bank robbery means for its customers, the surrounding society [as kquietude points out]...). And even then, all I could come up with was a "right/wrong-constellation", not an absolute seal of approval, or stamp of condemnation.

He was wrong. His medium to achieve blessing is highly immoral, and if he couldn't find another way then perhaps he wasn't meant to be the one who saved her from this instance; moreover maybe no one was.

Where there is a will there is a way, yet in life we should look for the right ones.

Interestingly enough, I once asked a Bhuddist friend a similiar question, to which he replied, in accordance to his beliefs, though in no way does he claim to speak for all Bhuddists:

The man shall be judged by his sins and deeds. The man will be punished for his sins, and rewarded for his deeds, independent of one another.

Knowing me for what I am he did not speak any more than what he thought I would accept. :P

I'm not saying it is right or wrong but I do know that if I was in the same situation as the old man I and my loved one wanted to live then I would do what he did if I couldn't get the money any other way. No matter how "wrong" or illegal or Immoral it is.

Though, assuming this man's wife wanted to live, he was risking a lot to safe his loved ones life. Right or wrong.

I think he was wrong because he could find for other means to fund her treatment,eg.get charitable organisation to help. When he rob the bank he might endanger other people' life and livehood and he is commiting a crime. If for one person, that many people might be hurt, I don't see why it isn't wrong. A rich man's life will most like be less valuable than a poor woman's life if so see it in a way that his children want his possessions. Who would want him to live? While the poor woman might have children who need her to support the family, so her life is in a sense more important.

um, NHS???

though his motive may have been in the right place his act was none the less wrong. It is not right to steal, kill or commit any other kind of criminal acts in order to save someone. As harsh as it may be. He now gives misfortune to others. as fate or whatever is about to take his precious person, in order to prevent that he is now willing to take something personal from others however great or small. and for that reason he is wrong

paper is manufactured millions of times a day, but each human life is completely unique and priceless.

well if no people were harmed or severly traumatised then I think its right!
people should always be prioritised over corporations and companies, in this case the man is forced to do something ilegal. what does health have to do with money anyway, is it moraly justifieable to make money off of medecine?... ive always been somewhat of a comunist, no rather a Humanist so my answer to that is no....

ok lets put it another way which is exactly how the government thinks. 1 man has to save 1 life. he goes out of his way to steal money resulting in thousands in order to save 1 life. Say this matter is excused. Now this happens with millions of people across the world with BILLIONS of currency being stolen. 1 case may be exceptional but to then have thousands of people steal money you then break the financial balance where it then goes to people having to take wheelbarrow full of paper to buy a loaf of bread (old germany)

Do we need money?..

though his motive may have been in the right place his act was none the less wrong. It is not right to steal, kill or commit any other kind of criminal acts in order to save someone.

What about civil disobedience? It, by nature, is "criminal."

The way I view it, it's okay. Just because it is taking from another, doesn't mean it's bad. After all, many of the joys we have in life come from the pain from another. We all get pleasure from another's suffering, to some degree.

For example, when you stop by McDonalds, you get the pleasure of a hamburger at the cost of the labor from the workers. When you go to Walmart and buy a video game, you may enjoy it over the years of hard work put into this video game. Same for a movie. The list goes on and on, until we hit things like killing, and such. Stealing is wrong? Not always. It depends on the situation.

I hate to turn this religious, but even in the bible, killing and stealing is justified. How many times did God kill people (like the Egyptians, etc.) in exchange for another people (Israelites) freedom? Did not God take from the wicked and give to the righteous? There's plenty of stories in the bible where God takes one thing from a person and gives it to another.

Think of stories like Robinhood. Most people would say he is a great guy. So yes, perhaps more people will suffer, but it isn't much different from anything else in life, just on a higher level of the spectrum in regards to the impact it has. We all need to work off of each other.

heh good answer nightmare

To be honest might be being a hypocrite right now because i dont know what i would do....

However I think it is wrong to break the law even for this life. It gives ideas to others and they might do the same as sephiroth rightly said. The man should seek help in other ways and who knows. If he was found out and chucked in prison and died, his wife may die without him. Maybe just by HAVING the money people might get suspicious and turn them over to police. The money would be confiscated and the man sent to prison and the women certainly left to die. And if he is religious well....................... who knows he may be rewarded for his patience. However if he is the subject of a wrong deed and has no other way then i think he did not necesarily do the wrong or right thing. But the deed that was needed.

But you must remember something: the purpose of the law is to serve the people. And it's not serving the people if it is an obstacle that prevents a person from saving the life of another. Sometimes breaking the law is a good thing. It goes even all the way to when blacks were slaves. Do you think the law was moral then? Do you think it was an acceptable law to own black people, to beat them, and to sell them?

Just because a law is made doesn't make it moral in regards to every situation that it can be applied to. After all, the law is made by people, and people are imperfect. It sounds to me like some of you view the law as the absolute moral standard of the United States, which it is by all means, far from this.

You sound like the US is the only place where they have laws now... :mellow:

Hmm...
In response to this question, I think that I, if in a similar situation, would probably not have stolen money and I probably wouldn't seek help or anything. Not because it is wrong by the laws of society or by the laws of the government, but because I don't think I really value life. People are born to die. All their hopes, their dreams, their feelings, those are just things which give humans the sensation that life is important. We attempt to separate ourselves from nature by telling ourselves that life is significant. Do you know how many ants died last year? I don't think anyone does. Why? because no one cares about ants. Their lives are insignificant to us, even though we have no idea whether or not they are capable of conscious thought, with which they could have dreams and feelings similar to those experienced by human beings. What separates us from the ants? Nothing really. Just size and "intellect". So then the question which I bring to the table is this: Why does life have value? What gives life its value? In pondering these questions, I've found that humans give life value. Society enforces it, and religion preaches it. Life is golden. But what about before society and religion? I really can't say for a fact, because I wasn't there, but I don't think that life really was valuable before then. Humans killed one another to survive, and some still do today. Now, however, most people value their lives way too much, to the extent that if someone were to point a gun in their face, they'd do everything that person said in order to avoid losing their precious life. Not so with those who don't value life as much. Those are the fighters. They don't care so much about their life so as to get scared that they might lose it. Those are the people with the mentality that if I die, so do you. They are willing to risk their lives for any number of reasons, and in disconnecting themselves from the societal views of life, are able to combat any person without feeling remorse or sympathy. They are able to kill without batting an eye. But, society brands them as psychopaths and maniacs. People willing to flawlessly execute the realm of human instinct. Killing without feeling. They are evil people to society, and we are warned to keep our distance from them.

So, the question which was asked in the beginning of the thread really doesn't have a "right or wrong" answer, because it truly depends on the value you personally give life. Those who support life over all else would be more challenged by the question. It would be a conflict between morals and beliefs. Those who do not value life as much would be unchallenged by the question, because if life has no value, then why go through all that trouble to save one?

That is my answer. I revolves around my opinions which I have gathered from fact. I in no way expect everyone to share my opinion.

It should also be noted that throughout my life, I have never shed a single tear in remorse.

You sound like the US is the only place where they have laws now... :mellow:

No, I don't mean that at all, but now that you mention it, I should rephrase it to "In the U.S., laws are meant to serve the people." After all, this wouldn't necessarily be true for all the laws under a dictatorship or monarchy.

But you must remember something: the purpose of the law is to serve the people. And it's not serving the people if it is an obstacle that prevents a person from saving the life of another. Sometimes breaking the law is a good thing. It goes even all the way to when blacks were slaves. Do you think the law was moral then? Do you think it was an acceptable law to own black people, to beat them, and to sell them?

Just because a law is made doesn't make it moral in regards to every situation that it can be applied to. After all, the law is made by people, and people are imperfect. It sounds to me like some of you view the law as the absolute moral standard of the United States, which it is by all means, far from this.


But then how can we make a perfect law. Thats just it, too many people are corrupt but mostly people have different opinions. There will always be parts of the law that wont work for some people. But if everytone takes the law into their own hands this world will be chaos. But for this I guess the answer is the quote 'The law is worth a life.' But i wonder how many....

There is no such thing as a perfect law. We have judges for this reason. The law says you aren't supposed to kill people. Yet there are exceptions such as self-defense, accidents, and the like. And in any regards, the question was on the issue of the morality of it, not how it can be made exempted from the law. I brought up the law to point out that the law is not the determining factor of the morality of this act, simply because there is no perfect law.

So, the question which was asked in the beginning of the thread really doesn't have a "right or wrong" answer, because it truly depends on the value you personally give life. Those who support life over all else would be more challenged by the question. It would be a conflict between morals and beliefs. Those who do not value life as much would be unchallenged by the question, because if life has no value, then why go through all that trouble to save one?
Because he loves her. But to truelly believe that life has no value then I don't think you love any one (at least at the moment). If you love someone, there is a reason in living: them.

I may not know how many ants died last year. I don't know how many humans died last year, either. But to know I let someone die when I could done something (even if that someone was an ant) then I would feel bad. I feel guilty when I kill an ant by accident. And if I'm down in the dumps enough I will cry about killing that ant. (I did once at lunch in school).

Hard to say. I personally think that there are ways around stealing money, so he's wrong in that sense. It depends on how desperate he was. If there were a way for him to borrow money from the government or the hospital, then he could do it.

In the this part of the United States, if he took his wife to the emergency room and couldn't pay for it, the government would have for him.

Ditto.

Hard to say. I personally think that there are ways around stealing money, so he's wrong in that sense. It depends on how desperate he was. If there were a way for him to borrow money from the government or the hospital, then he could do it.

In the this part of the United States, if he took his wife to the emergency room and couldn't pay for it, the government would have for him.

@xeronia and darksage

it is true, if a person has an immediately life threatening injury like a heart-attack, or a car crash, the operations to stabilize the person would be handle with no regard to the ability of the patient to pay. However, in the states I've been in, I don't believe that the government will pay for your care indefinitely. The government must balance it's books (almost a joke in the US) and unfortunately sustaining the life of a terminal patient costs a lot of money.

Imagine being a politician. You have to feed your family and you can't without that sweet salary you get for being a Senator. You have two choices: spend 1 million dollars, john doe gets to live 5 more years and you get his and his wife's vote. OR spend 1 million dollars, you get your face in Time magazine for fixing the school system in your state, and you get the vote of every mother with a school kid.

Interestingly enough, I once asked a Bhuddist friend a similiar question, to which he replied, in accordance to his beliefs, though in no way does he claim to speak for all Bhuddists:

The man shall be judged by his sins and deeds. The man will be punished for his sins, and rewarded for his deeds, independent of one another.

Knowing me for what I am he did not speak any more than what he thought I would accept. :P

That saying got me. It makes the most sense, I believe.

I think the answer is meant to be...

what's right is wrong sometimes.
what's wrong is right sometimes.

In this situation, the right is wrong and the wrong is right, therefore both are the answer?

Ah this type of thing is always quarreled with in life by the lots. For the truth is in life... ther are no right or rong answers. It is only right if the one who chooses a path. Think it is the right one to follow. For instance, u see a fight. U dont know who is good or evil. And u r forced to choose a side. Watever side u choose. It is neither right nor rong. And in this situation. The man believes that his action is the right thing to do. While others take this to be of rong doing. For it is a part of the social life of all beings on Earth. All fight for space, food, water, relaxation. And... of course.... love. As u know stories of a mother cat jumping into a fire, risking her life to save her kitten. So u see.... it is neither rong nor right. Only wat u believe is right or rong. Is the truth that beholds.

Just results, does not justify the means of achieving the results. For instance, I want to buy a beggar a McDonalds cheeseburger from the dollar menu. Oops forgot my wallet. Hey that guy dropped a hundred dollar bill! Man he looks rich. He won't miss it. (Coyote goes into McDonalds and buys 10! hamburgers for the homelessman.) I just keep the rest :).

What I'm trying to say is if the way to achieve said goal leads to injustice its bad, period.

However, honestly if it was my wfe on the deathbed...well I'd might just go rob a bank, that doesn't make it right though and I won't try to persuade myself that it is.

Actually this situation is neither right nor rong. First it is rong to rob a bank, and frighten many innocents. Setting bad ex and etc. But, if he was to be interrogated he could tell the Police his reasoning. So the man couldve done it to get attention or wat. He couldve just asked the Hospital for insurance. They provide those things. But mainly, i think if he told the police, they could try to help him know ppl in the world today. Lots of good ppl, for a good person is like a Cameleon in a large massive oak tree. And is difficult to find. It may be hard, bit its ther.Then he could get reduced or dropped charges.

This was a question posed to pre-school kids, and I thought it quite interesting.

A poor man's wife is very sick. She will die if she does not get treatment. The man robs a bank to get money for her treatment. Is he right or wrong?



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My own opinion:

On one hand, the man is morally right to take measures to save somebody's life. On the other, he is wrong because he is forcibly taking over what is not his. So it's a morally ambiguous situation, and one cannot label him definitely as either.

Nevertheless I think such a situation would tell us more about the society we are in rather than the moral calibre of the so-called "criminal". What sort of society denies treatment to a person simply because he/she cannot pay up? Should the value of life be judged by the economic capacity of the person, i.e, is a rich man's life far more valuable than that of a poor woman's ?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


What do you think ? Depends on who you are asking? To me, they have the same value. To a diety, same value. To the society, the rich man is more valuable because he continues the flow of the economy along with everyone else who buy and sell.

I think hes wrong... =\ Cuz im sure there are other ways to save a persons life than to steal... relatives? I'm sure he has some... Friends? I mean come on now... =\ Associates? hello?

That isnt the point. The point is that if he doesnt steal she dies. No questions ask other then that one.

What is rain turned to acid!? WHO KNOWS!?

It's wrong, but I would do it without a doubt =S

Humans will die, whether prematurely or right on time. I would've let the woman fade to peace, the treatment may have after effects and risks. It would be better to just let her go right then and there than to try to save her and have the chance of torturing her.

^ I think the cure in this hypothetical situation is supposed to cure her immediately and permanently.

i totally say wrong i know he is trying to save somebody's life, but it is wrong to rob the bank, he should go and work harder to earn enough money!! :bleh:

Wow, I think this a topic for serious debate, like politicians and other people like that.

I say it's best to let her go. I mean try to help her the best you can, but don't hurt or take from someone else to save her.

He most probably wouldn't hurt her, for he seems the type of man that is calm and gentle and will do anything to save the one he loves. But, in doing so try to avoid wounding somone..

Wrong. There is always another and less violent way for things like this.

If you must, raise a charity. There are always plenty of businesses that would love to see their names in a good light, in the news.