Question

the expensive treatment
your partner is dying from a rare disease. luckily a cure has recently been invented, by one pharmacist who lives fairly close to you. this pharmacist is selling the cure for ten times the amount it cost him to make it. you try to raise the money, but even borrowing from friends and taking a loan from the bank, you can only raise half the amount. you go to the pharmacist and offer to pay him half now and half later, but he refuses, saying that he invented the cure and is determined to make money off it. you beg him to sell it cheaper as your partner will die before you can raise the full amount, but he still refuses.
you believe you could break into his store one night after he has gone home and steal the cure. this would definitely save your partner, although you might be arrested for the crime.

1. the moral dilemma: what should you do?
2. what if you could only steal the cure by killing the pharmacist, would that make a difference?

Explanation:

1. This is a moral - ethical dilemma. Stealing is illegal and violates property rights, but not stealing may lead to the death of a loved one. One could consider alternative solutions like appealing to the public for donations, legal action against the pharmacist's price - gouging, or further negotiation.
2. Killing the pharmacist is a more extreme and morally reprehensible act. It involves taking a life, which is a serious ethical and legal violation. The moral calculus becomes even more complex as it adds the gravity of murder to the equation of saving a loved - one's life.

Answer:

1. There is no easy answer. One could continue to seek legal and ethical means such as public fundraising, legal challenges to the price, or more negotiation. Stealing is illegal and unethical but not stealing may result in a loved - one's death.
2. Killing the pharmacist is an unacceptable option as it involves taking a human life, which is a far more serious moral and legal transgression than stealing. It does not make the situation more justifiable.