Can stealing be right if the situation calls for it?

Lately, I have been participating in non-Christian forums concerning moral issues. Basically, I wanted to see how well I can defend the Christian perspective in a secular forum in which the contents of the Bible is irrelevant to the other members of the forum.

This week, someone started a new thread with the following post:

A man named Hans has a dying wife with a mysterious disease. It was thought that this disease had no cure until finally a doctor had created a special medicine that can save the life of Hans' wife. The problem is the doctor is charging $50,000 which is much more money that Hans can afford. At first, Hans tries to raise the money but he's still well short of the asking price. He then tries to negotiate with the doctor, but the doctor refuses to lower his price. Finally in a desperate measure, Hans steals the medicine behind the doctor's back. Was Hans wrong to do such a thing?

Immediately, someone else, posted

Nope he wasn't wrong

Another posted the following:

Sure, what Han did was wrong, but any sane human being would do the same thing. I would not equate $50,000 with an irreplaceable human life. The doctor will live and replace the lost money. The wife doesn't have the luxury of replacing her life. Also I'd rather live with the indirect death of others than live without my loved one.

The dilemma is between two moral wrongs. Which wrong is more serious is the question. Is stealing a bigger wrong than not saving a life? It is very cut and dry. The power is in your hands. The guilt and responsibility is yours and yours alone.

Instead of posting a structured argument supporting moral absolutism, I posted the following to prime the discussion:

What if it costs the doctor $50,000 to make the medicine? Let's say that the doctor purchases its ingredients with his own money with the assumption that the patient that needs it would redeem the cost that he incurs?

Now, he's out $50,000 and unable to pay his bills which includes the rent of his office space, the repayment of loan for his medical equipment (like x-ray machines, sterilizing ovens, etc.), and his medical school loan.

So, he packs up his practice to move it to an upscale neighborhood in which his patients are able to pay.

Now, the poor neighborhood, the original location of his practice, is without a doctor; many babies and children die from preventable diseases because of the lack of a doctor there.

Not so cut and dry is it?

The person who started the thread responded with the following:

You're missing the point of the question and adding irrelevent ideas to the story. I'm simply asking if Hans' action is right or wrong from a moral standpoint.

Again, I refrained from posting a structured argument supporting moral absolutism and continued my argument for considering the consequences of Hans' action. I wrote the following:

The ideas that I inject are not irrelevant. You are saying that theft stops at the loss of property and we should weigh the loss of life against the loss of property.

But too often, then it comes to health care, it does not stop at the loss of property.

In fact, the scenario plays out over and over in developing countries in which a socialist government takes over. These government would impose price control on the medical profession (as well as other parts of the economy) using the same comparisons that you specify. Whether it is the government imposing price control or Han stealing the medicine, it's still theft.

The doctors and other medical care workers have bills to pay and with the price control are not able to do so. So they leave the country and the entire nation sinks into a health care disaster. Check the news on Zimbabwe.

Closer to home, in West Virginia, people have been suing Ob/Gyn left and right. Same logic, it's only money; the doctors can re-earn the money. Unable to pay the malpractice insurance, all the Ob/Gyn left West Virginia. People there have to leave the state to get prenatal care if they are able to do so. Those, who don't have the means to travel to neighboring states, suffer. More particularly, these babies suffer.

When it comes to healthcare, theft does not stop at the lost of property.

The moral standpoint must weigh the loss of one life against the loss of many lives.

There are consequences to all our actions and moral judgment must not only account for the single act but also the consequences of that act.

Most of the posts rebutting my posts continues to rehash the argument that Hans is correct because he has chosen the lesser of two evils.

So, I asked the following two questions:

If what you said is true, then would it be ok for Hans to rob a bank to pay the doctor? Would he be right if he rob you to pay the doctor?

Then, someone posted a reply that allows me to segway to my structured argument supporting moral absolutism. He wrote the following:

Right and Wrong is personal perspective. If he were to attempt such a thing, two things can happen:

1.) I would kick his @ss and rob him of his dignity.

2.) He will be put in jail and punished by the courts.

These consequences are the results of the technical wrong he has done to me. This is negative from my perspective because it is not in my best interests to lose $50,000.

But we are speaking from his perspective now. His actions are noble and understandable. If it weren't, then we'd feel no sympathy. If he needed the money for drugs, booze, and prostitutes then I can agree with you 100% that it was totally wrong.

I'll break it down one more time. His actions are wrong because it was an act of theft (against the rules). His intensions were right because he is saving a life (protect family).

It is not black and white like you want it. "Intent" is a very important factor in morality and in law. It could mean the difference between murder and manslaughter. Sometimes judges consider the defendant's competence. This is related with the defendant's "intent" as well. We do not live in a black and white world so don't limit youself to that view.

Here is my reply:

You have misapplied the legal process of determining the defendant's intent. It is not the determination of whether he did wrong in order to help someone else or for selfish gain (the rob Peter to pay Paul scenario) as you described it. It is to determine if he intended to do wrong or was the wrong committed accidentally (the difference between murder and manslaughter).

e.g. Did the accused shoplifted a sweater or did she try it on, continued shopping and forgetting that she still had it on, walked out of the store?

Hans did not mistakenly take the medicine. He purposely took it for his wife.

You also misapplied the legal process of determining the defendant's competence. A defendant's competence is not based on intent. It is a determination of whether the defendant knows if he knows right from wrong. I think we can agree that Hans knows that stealing is wrong. Otherwise, this whole discussion is moot.

So legally, he would be convicted.

But, let's separate what is legal from what is morally right and limit our discussion to what is morally right.

You nailed our disagreement right on the head. It's a matter of whether one believes there is a moral absolute or is morality relative. I believe in a moral absolute and you believe in moral relativism (as do most other participants in this particular thread).

The problem with moral relativism is that often the criteria slips into what's best for one's self is what is right and what's bad for one's self is what is wrong. Your reply is a prime example. You wrote "Right and Wrong is personal perspective... This is negative from my perspective because it is not in my best interests to lose $50,000... But we are speaking from his perspective now. His actions are noble and understandable."

If we apply that criteria, society would fall apart.

That's why we have laws that are... well... absolute.

The scenario is framed for the purpose of supporting moral relativism.

First, it leads the readers to feel sympathetic towards Hans and unsympathetic towards the doctor. What if the doctor borrowed the $50,000 to make the medicine? What if Hans' effort to raise the money consisted of knocking one door and rejected never tried again?

Then, it leads the readers to conclude a false assertion. "Finally in a desperate measure" lead the readers to believe that Hans has exhausted all courses of action.

Hans has not exhausted all courses of action. Not that I'm advocating these actions but, Hans did not rob a bank to get the money to pay for the medicine nor did he rob an individual for the money as I had mentioned before.

Until his wife dies or Hans dies (whichever event comes first), Hans has not exhausted all courses of action. Every day brings new conditions and new opportunities for the acquisition of the medicine.

Hans simply gave up and resorted to breaking the law. And that is why Hans is wrong.