Perhaps you should ask Jesus of Nazareth, who could have saved His life but felt it would have been wrong. Some things are more precious than life, including ideals. Is violating the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal" lesser in precendence than saving a life? After all, there's Thou Shalt Not Murder, but not "Thou Shalt Not Let Someone Die"...else we'd expect Jerry Falwell to be stopping the executions of murderers, right?
Possibly so, but it's not morally wrong. Human lives take precedence over property. Especially in an emergency situation.
Just for hoots...what would you say if two people in the pharmacist's family died because those medicines used to save the other person were not available? Was it wrong then?
Don't get me wrong...I see your point...but just don't like the way "God's law" is thrown around so carelessly. :-)
Rights are more important than life, or we'd not have so many people give their lives for this country.
Isn't Jesus a special case? Really, now.
Some things are more precious than life, including ideals. Is violating the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal" lesser in precendence than saving a life?
Rights are useless without life. I believe the very definition of an "idealogue" is someone who believes his ideals and principles are more valuable than an actual human life expiring in front of him.
Maybe you would let someone die rather than "steal" medicine for them during an emergency, but I would not.
Just for hoots...what would you say if two people in the pharmacist's family died because those medicines used to save the other person were not available? Was it wrong then?
Well, in my scenario, the pharmacist and his family were not on the premises. We can discuss how to ration supplies during an emergency, but I think a basic element of any scheme would have to admit that people actually present have a higher claim on emergency medicines than those theorhetically in need at a future time who aren't even here. The life dying here right now takes precednce.
SD