Daxas Buyers Club Ethics Analysis

1582 Words7 Pages
A man’s fight against the laws of the American Food and Drug Administration to save AIDS patients. Dallas Buyers Club is a movie directed by Jean Marc Vallée, which illustrates a minority’s struggle to access illegal, but non-toxic drugs that improve significantly their health. This raises the following moral dilemma: Can it ever be considered morally permissible to break the law? Given the moral implications, it is morally permissible to break the law when certain conditions are met. It is morally permissible to do an illegal act if the action is morally right and good. An action could be morally right and illegal at the same time, when it represents the lesser of two evils, or when the intentions of the person performing it are noble and have for goal to achieve his duty. An action can be morally right, but still illegal because in a situation where there is no good option, the lesser of two evils is the morally best option to do, even if it is illegal (Thomson 39). For example, in Dallas Buyers Club, Ron Woodroof acted rightly by choosing the lesser of two evils: sell illegal drugs to help AIDS patients feel better and live longer, instead of letting them suffer and die (Dallas Buyers Club). If he would have chosen to obey the law, a great number of AIDS patient would have suffered more and died of their illness, and he would have been guilty of not helping them according to the Harming by Omission Thesis (HOT) and the Equivalence of Evil Thesis (EET) (Mieth 17). These thesis affirm that omitting to help someone in need would be as bad as hurting the person directly. Thus, Woodroof acted in a morally permissible way even if he broke the law because he chose the lesser of two evils (Matheny 16). Also, someone can act justly e... ... middle of paper ... ...r the minority according to Mill (Falikowski 79, 80). Thus, the interests or moral principles of a minority could be ignored, since they are a minority, even if they are important. For example, the AIDS patients were a minority in society, so their interests were not considered in laws about drugs (Dallas Buyers Club). Hence, if the laws do not evolve fast enough, they could interfere with people’s natural rights; they could become unjust, will be out-dated, and not consider the interests of the minorities. To conclude, it is morally permissible to break the laws when it is morally right to do so, the law is unjust or out-dated. It is true that laws reflect what the society thinks, but this rule of majority could repress and tyrannize the interests of the minorities, such as AIDS patients. Thus, it is morally permissible to break the law under certain conditions.

    More about Daxas Buyers Club Ethics Analysis

      Open Document