|
Smith and the Pharmacist (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EricB. |
| heres a twist to the story...would it be ethically wrong to break into the pharmacy if the disease the wife had was actually aids and she caught it by ing a corpse that magic johnson bled on after escaping on foot with oj simpson from the crime scene where they killed the chick to get some memorabilia back in their possession to pay for their coke habits/??huh riddle me that batman |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
But... he's already dead. |
LOL, no...it's the doctor that gets killed. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
LOL, no...it's the doctor that gets killed. |
I didn't watch the show, so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the crash actually kill them and they all ended up in some sort of purgatory? |
|
|
| JD8180 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
How did the fight break out and was the injury intentional or accidental?
|
I don't think any of those matter at this point. If the pharmacist was injured in any way, Smith injured an innocent man while committing a crime. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
did Smith do anything wrong? If so, why? |
Was he caught?
| quote: | And should there be a punishment? Why? What for?
|
Was he caught? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Was he caught? |
What if he was(n't)? What's the difference, Halcyonally speaking?
| quote: | Originally posted by JD8180
I don't think any of those matter at this point. If the pharmacist was injured in any way, Smith injured an innocent man while committing a crime. |
If the pharmacist attacked him first for whatever reason, it's blatantly obvious that Smith injured him in self-defence and he's hardly to blame for that. If, however, Smith jumped on the chemist first, then whether or not he had an intent to injure/kill the poor sap changes everything. |
|
|
| EricB. |
| what disease is she dying from? is it aids? sounds like aids? i think its aids |
|
|
| JD8180 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
If the pharmacist attacked him first for whatever reason, it's blatantly obvious that Smith injured him in self-defence and he's hardly to blame for that. If, however, Smith jumped on the chemist first, then whether or not he had an intent to injure/kill the poor sap changes everything. |
yeah, but the attack would have been avoided all together if Smith didn't break into the store. whether Smith or the pharmacist started the fight, I think Smith is to blame and should be responsible for anything caused by it.
if the pharmacist started the attack, I see it as self-defense in order to protect his property. |
|
|
| ModernNosferatu |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I'm interested to see if anyone will give a different answer, as I myself gave when I heard it.
If I were responsible for the judgement of this case, I'd hold the chemist responsible for jeopardising the life of someone else. He ought to have sold the medicine and gathered the necessary information so he could hold the guy accountable for his acts if he failed to do his part of the deal. Then, as a lawmaker, I'd force Smith to sell some of his property if he failed to pay in 7 days so the chemist wouldn't end up in debt, and I wouldn't have Smith pay for whatever it is that he needed to break in order to enter. |
What were the drugs he needed? If he lived in a remote village, I doubt he would have anything worth of value that the Pharmacist would see as value to trade for the drugs he needed for, but in this case it comes down to the individual. Was he & mostt are people willing to sacrifice their life to save a "soul mate"...We aren't talking about some random female we has been dating for 3 months, we are talking about a couple who feels they are "soul mates".
Most people will do and try anything to hold on to something so precious. He did do a crime but most "real" men would sacrifice their lives to save the one they love one. It is an unfortunate display of events but I think it could have been fixed if the Pharasisit wasn't a prick, we can only speculate until we are in that situation ourselfs as we don't live in a villages on TA. Yes, he did a crime but he did it with the best intention and things got out of hand and I suppose he is paying the price now and his wife will probably die anyhow since it seems the Rx were never giving to her anyhow.
I find it noble and chivalry that he did what he did but loosing two lives now...one in prison and one on her death bed, a very tainted situation on how that villiage system can work. What confuses me is people living in villages, don't they all know each other and I feel something should have been worked out in such a small community. Such as other people piching in or the sell of pigs and cattle.
I did not read the story and have no information on it so this. I'm just talking off the top of my head with the information giving to me in is Thread. |
|
|
| Lira |
Nosferatu, this is a thought experiment, it never happened.
| quote: | Originally posted by JD8180
yeah, but the attack would have been avoided all together if Smith didn't break into the store. whether Smith or the pharmacist started the fight, I think Smith is to blame and should be responsible for anything caused by it.
if the pharmacist started the attack, I see it as self-defense in order to protect his property. |
Oh, I figured the fight had started before he broke in.
Still, the pharmacist's reluctance to sell the remedy is analogous to him poisoning the wife: he knows his behaviour may cause the death of a third person, yet he's refusing to help. If you accidentally injure a killer, I can't imagine anyone would say that immoral; if you accidentally kill a murderer, same thing; however, the moment you actively take the life of someone else with the clear intent of doing so, you're choosing to do something immoral that most likely isn't the only available option. That changes everything. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
I didn't watch the show, so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the crash actually kill them and they all ended up in some sort of purgatory? |
Even though there was some sort of "purgatory" involved, the plane crash didn't kill them. Everything that happened on the island was real. And Richard wasn't on the plane anyways, he was already on the island when the plane crashed. That whole thing with the doctor and his wife took place long before the plane crashed on the island. LOST's timeline is ed up like that. :p |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Still, the pharmacist's reluctance to sell the remedy is analogous to him poisoning the wife: he knows his behaviour may cause the death of a third person, yet he's refusing to help....
....the moment you actively take the life of someone else with the clear intent of doing so, you're choosing to do something immoral that most likely isn't the only available option. |
Not necessarily, if you go solely by the definition of the pharmacist's job. Furthermore, we don't know what each party's frame of reference/value system is...so you cannot say for sure that either man's actions are immoral, or that one man's are more ethical than another's. |
|
|
|
|
