Property Rights

Oh those hypothetical questions. I just wanna see what type of people are in here.

Imagine you are the leader of a nameless country. So a man, in your country, has a wife who is suffering from cancer (pick one I don't care for this scenario). The man is an educated individual and is learned in medicine and science. He labors endlessly in his basement to find the cure for her cancer. He makes the vow that he doesn't want payment for this cure. All he wants is to cure his wife. As he exits his basement with the new found cure, he finds that it is too late. His wife has succumbed to the cancer. In his grief, he destroys his notes, but the cure is still in his head. Since he wanted nothing but the life of his wife, he refuses all attempts if payment for that cure and refuses to give it to others.

Knowing that this cure could save untold millions, what do you do???

I'll have to think about this one for a bit. While its tempting to say 'taking it by force is permissible because its accomplishing a far, far greater public good that could otherwise not be achieved' and that this man's right to property is far less consequential than the millions of cancer patients' right to life, I feel there is probably some farther reaching implications.

Bryant wrote:I'll have to think about this one for a bit. While its tempting to say 'taking it by force is permissible because its accomplishing a far, far greater public good that could otherwise not be achieved' and that this man's right to property is far less consequential than the millions of cancer patients' right to life, I feel there is probably some farther reaching implications.

If by force, then what means of force??? What is the line you would not cross??? Do the ends really justify the means???

Think about it and get back to me.

If one man can cure cancer, so can another.

Speaking of whig theres this new med that has killed all forms of cancer in tests. May be the miracle cure

But you wont getthat under socialized medicine

So nobody else wants to answer.

Marconius wrote:So nobody else wants to answer.

Its a very good question, and I presume most of us are conflicted.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:So nobody else wants to answer.

Its a very good question, and I presume most of us are conflicted.

Simple things never appear to be simple.

I wonder what the answer would be if I said one was the US President and we had known terrorists in custody and they knew info that would keep thousands safe.

I agree with Pun, but you knew I would. Ends never justify the means since it is impossible to have good ends with less than good means.