Where do you stand on Kohlberg's stages of moral development?

There are different perspectives on morality, and Kohlberg's stages of moral development are one way to identify your moral beliefs.

Here's the scenario:

There are six stages. How you answer the above question decides which stage you are at.

I am at stage two. I do not believe inherent laws of morality exist. Instead, morality is a social construct we follow, because it benefits us. If Heinz has decided to prioritise his wife's life over jail-time, then it is in Heinz' best interests to steal the drug. If he does not prioritise his wife's life, then he shouldn't steal the drug.

Where do you stand, and what do you use to justify your point of view?

 

Stage 5, or 6?

I tried to leave religious stuff out, since this is not religion stuff, and I think I kind of failed. There seems to be a few hints.

Anyways, he shouldn't steal the drug. I don't believe the whole "I have no choice..." thing. There's always a choice and a way around things like these, besides letting his wife die or steal it. I mean, if he steals it, what if he's caught in the act? Instant jail AND his wife dies; so it's a total waste of effort. If, in the end, his wife does die, then he will have to bear with the pain. Life, after all, is about living on, losing people and gaining some, our choices and all that.

However, if he does decide to steal, then he will have to consider the risks. Like I said, it's possible he can be caught on the spot. I'm guessing 50% he will get caught, 50% he will not. And what about his wife? What if she is religious and believes the concept of gaining things and not going the easy way, regardless of her life, and rejects it? If she does gladly accept the drug, then good for Heinz. If he did steal the drug, then he shouldn't run away. He should take the consequences like a man (lol?) and face harsh reality.

And couldn't Heinz just ask if he could--I forgot the term--take the drug and pay it over time, pretty much like a debt?

So, all in all, Heinz cannot be blamed (at least not fully) for his choice, may it be trying to find another way, let his wife die, or steal the drug. It is, hands down, the druggist for being selfish. Would he really just charge Heinz $2000, ten times more than the original price, despite the possibility that tens, hundreds or even thousands of people are suffering from this cancer that he has the cure to? Don't you think that's selfish?

I'm sorry (again) if I just contradicted myself but my brain's mush right now and the details of the situation have been left out, so I can't answer properly. Yes, yes the details are extremely important; even the age, imo. I don't blame you, though. :3

A bit off-topic (but still relevant...ish), but where did you get this? Like, found it in a book or internet...or what? :3"

 

There's a stage 7, which is based on religion, but whether it's a real stage is up for debate.

She's near death, and there's only one drug that can save her. In other words, she will definitely die if she is not given the drug, and he has already exhausted every possible way to get it, except stealing.

If he steals it, and is caught, that's a risk he's choosing to take, and an outcome he's already considered. So even if it's a 1% chance that he'll actually succeed, to him, it may be worth it to seize that chance, instead of resigning himself to the 0% of his wife dying. The important thing is whether you believe it is morally acceptable to try to steal the drug.

All possibilities, but none really cloud the main issue of whether it is wrong for him to steal in order to save his wife.

What do you mean by 'face harsh reality'?

"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.' "

Does being selfish mean that you are denied the right to sell your wares at the price you deem fitting?

If the details have been omitted, then they are irrelevant. In my opinion, trying to insert extra details into thought experiments is to wheedle out of answering the question.

I found this on Wikipedia, but I knew it had been used for measuring morality for a while.

 

Stage five.

I don't really know why, but people shouldn't REALLY profit off of other people. Wait, I mean, they shouldn't profit off of them by charging more than what they paid. Example: $300 or so seems okay, maybe $500. But $2,000?! Crazy.

 

I'm sdtage 6 human life is important regardless of human wealth or selfish needs. though the whole thing could of been avoided if the druggist let him buy half the dose, or said he could use his wife as the first human test subject to help demonstrate whether or not it acctually works. Am I over thinking this at all?

 

Point taken; but to answer the question, I'm sorry but no. That drug can't just be confined in that town; it's a cure for a special cancer (which is cancer nonetheless), not a cure for an exclusive illness only in THAT town, vicinity or anything. If he tried looking at other places, he could find it. Hope may be painful, but it's not entirely false.

Besides, the wife could be ashamed of being the wife of a criminal.

All actions have consequences. Ironically, great actions of good are sometimes under appreciated and small actions of evil are punished to an extreme level. There was a man named Jean who stole a loaf of bread for his family and got locked in jail. He tried escaping, for his family, but all the same, he was caught and locked in jail for a total of 19 years. When released, he was dissed by everyone despite his good intentions. The only person who was kind to him was a Bishop. Not even his wife and kids, if I remember correctly. True story.

Ah, speed reading fails me once more. Very well, very well. The druggist is just selfish then~ *points to reply below*

How is it fitting when you're greedy, despite the fact people's lives are at stake (right term? xD")? It's not fitting. Human rights have loopholes, too, and that's what morality is for. He's not taking the benefits of human rights as a person. He's abusing it.

You mean bias (sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean with "wheedle out of answering". ^^; I'm lame, I know)?

To reply properly, details are relevant in some way, generally. Generally. Everything has a certain part to play, like little ants, no matter how annoying they are. BUT, it highly depends on which way you look at it.

Ah, I'll look into it, then.

 

I found myself idling between two and six, but I think I'm more of a two at the end.
He would be happier with his wife alive than her dead, regardless of whether or not he goes to jail.
Besides, the way the media could portray this, who knows if he would serve a long sentence, if any.
He'll probably touch the jury's heart.


Speaking on a business standpoint, the druggist is charging too much. While he should definitely charge more than it cost him to make the drug (I have a couple of formulas for finding price), he won't make as much profit at $2000. Several people would buy it, several might get loans and buy it, but even more won't be able to afford it. Ten people buying it at $2000 might be profitable until compared to thirty buying it at half the price. If the druggist himself acted more moral, i.e., charging less and playing the "medical hero" even if it was all a facade, he would profit more, imo.

 

For a situation like this it's mainly about what's more important, the means to do it or the ends that it brings?
Out of the 6 choices i'm number 4. I will steal the drugs but go to jail. Show an example that theft is not justifiable without some consequence, even if it is for someone you love.

However, my first thought was that yes he should go to jail, but the law should have never of been like this in the first place. It should be made so that the doctor is regulated so he doesn't over-price his good, since the good offers positivie externalities in that it extands life expectency and health, and as a result would increase the general health of the population and productivity of the workers, whereby they will be able to produce more medicine and therefore further help the health of others.
Sorry if you didn't get that, I study economics and we've been drilled to write and think like that in exams! XD
Still I believe that laws should be in place to benefit the whole of society on different levels, like helping to support Heinz's wife health, and not benefit itself otherwise a elitist tyranical government and economy will be created where only the rich can afford healthcare.

 

There are a lot of gray areas in my life, but nowhere is it more apparent than in morality. I am in flux between stages three to six. I believe many instances of thought patterns beneath that are under-thought and too difficult to defend under intense scrutiny, but I could entertain the right and wrong of virtually any train of thought; I just feel most comfortable in stage three and onward. The trouble is that many of them overlap in my mind. Were Heinz not to steal the drug, I would hold the stage three negation, and had he stolen it I would argue the stage four affirmation; however, to both the law and the druggist I would posit the stage five and six affirmations, while making Heinz aware of the stage six negation. These are only the most apparent given the situation, of course.

Perhaps what this really says about me is not that I'm on any particular stage, but that morality is, to me, secondary to being in the right mind to make a decision. And being in the right mind means that one understands one's intent, others' intent, consequences of one's actions, and whether or not one is prepared to deal with those consequences. In the case of being moral, this almost inexorably, though indirectly, leads to self-betterment, as it is no small feat to do the "right" thing, much less the "most right" thing under the circumstances, and one who is committed to that ideal must constantly better himself in order to achieve it in every circumstance.

But I don't know. I don't usually give it that much thought. Morality is something I allow my id to handle, because it only manifests in my choices and in the choices I suggest to others. When I suggest things to others, I am working with their mind, not their morals; they can figure those out on their own. And when I am making my own decisions, well... I think the fact that I could make a strong argument for nearly anything on this list proves that I have some pretty bizarre personal scruples. Sometimes there's no sense thinking about it when I make less enemies just following my gut and cleaning up after myself when absolutely necessary.

 

Hee, I remember doing this in philosophy class, and not being able to answer where I stood at the time...

I think I'm at stage four. I'd steal the drug for my wife (errr, husband), but I'd face the consequences, go to jail, do community service, pay for the drug eventually, etc.

 

Same here and while we're at it I believe all other stages are a function of stage two, either directly or indirectly.
You can't do anything that isn't in your own best interest. Everyone's Holy Grail is satisfaction no matter how you twist or turn it. However, we differ greatly in how this satisfaction is achieved in us.

 

I am at stage four. While morality is not inherent, I am not willing to do to another what I would not allow them to do to me. I abhor contradictions and/or double standards. The man could make the medicine and choose not to sell it at all. This is the same as an impossible price. He has every right to do what he wants with his property in this way. I would not want someone to steal from me if I was not willing to sell it. Whether I would be willing to sell it or not is irrelevant; there you are getting into a matter of individual values. I choose four because I have a personal law regarding it, but I would not consider society's standards with such things, whichever I chose to do.

 

Stage six, but I'm kind of split on the reasoning.
On one hand, he should steal the medicine because it is very likely to save his wife. If it works, then test was successful and it can be reproduced to benefit many other people. Heinz will go to jail and will have saved many people as a result of stealing the medicine to test on his wife.

On the other hand, he shouldn't steal it because it might do nothing or even make his wife worse. If this happens, one person dies and Heinz still goes to jail with no good coming of it.

 

I allow people to invent their own moralities until they contradict themselves. There must be a balance of rights among men. If the man who is stealing the medicine does not claim the right to property, then he may steal it, because he is not contradicting his own values. Likewise, if he does steal it, then the inventor is free to assume that the one who stole it does not believe in property rights, and can go and take whatever he wants from him. I will not stand for people who say that they have rights that others do not.

This is not morality, specifically, but rights theory. Morality is far more slippery ground. You do not have to have a right to do something in order for it to line up with your highest moral value. Consider egoists, for example. They hold that the protection and overall prosperousness of themselves and those they love is all that matters, and that no other things can be moral or immoral. Stealing from others and having others steal from each other has no effect on them. They have no concept of rights, but they do have a concept of morality. I speak in terms of right here, and that should be obvious now. If anyone claims a right, he must assume that it exists for all other people, lest he contradict himself.

Moralities can contradict themselves in the same way, though, and that I will not abide, either. It is okay to steal from the rich but not the poor, because of a code of honour, or vice versa, and other such ideas. Or, it is okay to steal from people if they refuse to pay taxes (but not vice versa there, because the one who would have taken your money for 'tax reasons' has already stolen from you, and stealing back would be correcting the balance), but not those who get paid by taxes (the one who did the stealing would be one of such person), and that kind of thing, as well. Going back to before, the egoist example would also contradict in this way, even though they do not acknowledge rights. In that example, you believe that you can steal from others without being morally wrong, but that others cannot steal from you without being morally wrong. A clear contradiction if I have ever seen one...