The Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, is stated as follows: A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors said would save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s laboratory…
Are you willing to give up any new electronics you own because they were made with slave labor?
That’s a strawman and you know it.
Are you saying that electronics don’t rely on slave labor?
https://www.emergingtechbrew.com/stories/2023/06/01/forced-labor-tech-supply-chains
And another strawman.
Cows must love your trail of failed arguments.
Ad hominem fallacy (or ad hominem) is an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by personally attacking them. Instead of discussing the argument itself, criticism is directed toward the opponent’s character, which is irrelevant to the discussion.
They insulted the idea not you.
And yet another strawman.
And you can check. This isn’t an account I control.
Ok, cool. That proves what? That you still don’t have an argument?
The 2 situations are not comparable.
Hmm… “life over money” seems like a reasonable justification for their decision and is an example of a “post-conventional” justification in Kohlberg’s theory, but I think it’s fair to try to point out the limitations of that justification as a general principle. I think that’s what @[email protected] was going for, but they were a bit too pithy, so their retort comes across as a straw man fallacy (more like whataboutism maybe - definitely some type of tu quoque).
no, but i’m too comfortable with them, and i should be giving them up and seeking ethically made stuff instead. i recognize that i’m doing something immoral
My take is that it’s pretty much impossible to live a completely moral life in an immoral world.
Even if you go 100% off the grid you aren’t actively fighting.
We have to pick our battles.
I just try to keep using my old stuff for as long as I can, and replace it with stuff I brought used.
Do you have a reputable source showing that Samsung phones, for example, are made with slave labour?
If they are then that would obviously be very bad, although I’m not sure it’s as bad as somebody dying (like in OP’s dilemma).
https://www.fastcompany.com/3061292/20-tech-companies-ranked-on-how-much-slave-labor-they-use
I see, Samsung is mentioned in that article. Like I said, I think that is obviously bad, but it’s probably not as bad as somebody dying.