I apologize if this question has already been asked, however, after searching through several posts, I didn't find anything that was a duplicate.
I'm currently taking biomedical ethics (my first ethics course) in university, and for the past week we discussed Heinz's dilemma. Through the process of analyzing the situation & developing my own opinion, I've begun to grow curious of any relationship(s) that may exist between the plausibility of the actions committed by actors in a thought experiment, and, consequently, whether or not the thought experiment is even able to be subjected to moral scrutiny.
For example, if Heinz knew ahead of time that he would almost certainly be caught and that his wife will never get the drug, or, that there's an extremely, extremely low chance that the drug will even work, or, if Heinz was aware of both of the aforementioned, I would think that one could argue that Heinz simply isn't acting logically should he attempt to steal the drug, even if his remaining options are so limited.
With that in mind, if the behavior(s) of an actor are so extreme that they could be considered illogical, or "crazy", then can the actor still be subjected to moral scrutiny? Would moral considerations still be applicable, or, would the scenario instead be restricted solely to logical analysis, which would perhaps involve the process of trying to determine the threshold for which actions are considered logical or not, given a circumstance & a set of conditions.
So, ultimately: do the behaviors of actors in a thought experiment need to be [widely agreed upon as] logical, in order to then apply moral scrutiny?