Heinz And Gertie Research Paper

It is said that even a drowning man will clutch at a straw, meaning that when there is no alternative, people will do anything to try to improve their situation. Such is the case of Heinz and Gertie. Upon learning that Gertie was deathly ill, Heinz sought out the druggist who was selling the only cure, which cost $2,000.00. Unfortunately, Heinz did not have the money to buy the cure so he went to everyone he knew in an attempt to get the money together to purchase the life-saving drug. Heinz managed to cobble together $1,000.00 which he brought to the druggist and begged him for the drug, promising to pay the rest of the money as soon as possible. Although it only cost the druggist $200.00 to make the drug, he declined to sell it to Heinz because he wanted to make more profit. Although Heinz never intended to commit a crime, he …show more content…
Aside from that it had no other value and only served as a means to an end. Gertie, however, has intrinsic value and “an action that does not acknowledge this intrinsic value is regarded as an immoral affront to human dignity.” (Smith 104). By not providing the drug for Gertie, the druggist did not acknowledge her intrinsic value, which is immoral and wrong. The “principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain.” (White). Following this logic, the theft of the drug was right as it saved the life of Gertie thereby bringing happiness to many people, including Gertie, Heinz, their children, relatives, and friends. The only person to suffer unhappiness was the druggist but his unhappiness was only temporary as he could always make more medicine. When considering how much the good outweighed the bad, the theft of the drug was moral and right and the failure of the druggist to sell the drug to Heinz was immoral and