Here is a hypothetical situation: In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. 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." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? It is not really important whether you answer "yes" or "no" to this problem but the reasoning behind the answer. Why do you think Heinz should or should not have stolen the drug? Other important questions include: Does Heinz have a right to steal the drug? Was he violating the druggist's rights? What sentence should a judge give him if he is caught? Once again, the main concern is with the reasoning behind the answers. The responses you make put you into 6 different groups. Although I think your group placement shouldn't be self-diagnosed because everyone sees themselves in the most moral light, determine which group you fit into. Try to determine your answer beforehand and see which of the six groups desribes your response best from this link: http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm Which of the six groups did you initially fit into for this particular problem? Did your opinion change once you discovered how your group reasons out the problem? This whole post concerns what are called KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT which are described in the link above. I find psychology to be very interesting and I'm just curious to how people will respond to the situation.
Ahh i remember this. We got asked this same question in psychology this last year. I think that yes he should have stolen the drug. And while it does go against a law(stealing) its important to think that while laws are there for a reason, they shouldnt be blindly followed. You have to keep the greater good in mind (I say this cause its my real opinion not cause I've seen this problem already). The needs of Heinz(saving his wife) is more important than the needs of the druggist(to make alot of money off of the drug), hence the "greater good"
Last semester, we talked about this in psychology class. We discussed a very similar situation. Regarding the matter of life and death, I do clearly fall into Group 6. However, with other matters, I fall in other groups most of the time.
I remember discussing this in a high school English class in grade 11. I believe that, out of a class of 30, only myself and one other person said that Hanz should have stolen the drug. I've always thought of it as one of my most vivid and disturbing memories from high school.
Well while I believe that people shouldn't break the law and that if everybody had a "good reason" to break the law and not be punished it would cause a lot of problems but I also think that in a situation like this he should have stolen the drug. If it came between saving a loved ones life by stealing or not stealing and my loved one die I would have to steal to save their life and I would take any consequences I had to take if it meant I saved their life.
I think that Heinz had no right whatsoever to the drug and was violating the druggist's rights. Since it was the druggist's creation and property, no one else has a right to it unless the druggist gives them that right. I also believe that it was morally and legally wrong for Heinz to steal the drug, and that stealing another person's property cannot be justified. That being said, I believe that Heinz is a sort of hero for saving his wife's life. I believe he had a moral right to save his wife's life by whatever means he could. I believe that his right to save his wife's life outweighs his lack of any right to the drug which could save her life. I also believe that laws are not always morally right or wrong. Sometimes it is morally right to do things that go against the law (even though it is morally wrong to break the law, sometimes the moral right to do something against the law outweighs the moral wrong of breaking the law), and sometimes it is morally wrong to do things that are perfectly legal. I believe the legal system is flawed in that there is no way it could possibly follow moral rights and wrongs at all times in all situations for all people under all circumstances. I also believe that human beings are morally obligated to "look out for each other," so while the druggist had every legal and moral right to keep the drug and charge whatever amount he decided for it, he was also morally obligated to safe the life of Heinz's wife since it was in his power to do so. So the druggist committed a moral wrong, even though he committed no legal wrong. In short, I believe that it was wrong of Heinz to steal the drug, but right of him to save his wife's life. I believe that the right of saving his wife's life outweighs the wrong of him breaking the law and stealing another person's property, so it was good that he did what he did. The fact that he was right to save his wife's life does not make him exempt from the wrong of stealing, it does not cancel out that wrong, nor does it minimize it, he is simply both wrong and right at the same time, but more right than wrong. Hopefully that makes sense... >.>; I saw a movie (the name escapes me) where there was an issue of moral vs. legal right and wrong, there was this guy whose kid needed a heart transplant but he couldn't afford it, couldn't get insurance, couldn't raise money in time, and the hospital wouldn't donate it, so he held the hospital hostage at gunpoint until they agreed to perform the operation. Sort of a similar issue in a way.
i totally have no idea what that article is saying but i think that he should have stolen it because its like this: make no money and women dies, loose money and women lives. its liek a life over money! peoples lives always come first. i'm sure the husband is happy to go to jail so that his wife may live.
I agree with Moth above. However I think when Heinz steals the drug he should leave the $1000 that he has managed to raise. Then the druggist has not made a loss - he just hasn't got as much as he wanted.
Sadly I've never faced or asked about this situation before so i didnt have any experinece, but I think that Heinz has "the right" to "steal" the drug. Well, if the druggist sues Heinz, the judge will order Heinz to pay only $1000 for that, because the druggist sure have the right o determine the prize for his medicine, but in this case, Heinz's wife is iin a dangerous situation and the druggist should have the knowledge to understand that Anyway, some laws are "not right" to follow, because the one who makes those laws dont understand much about our life, he dosnet own a microscope
i know a lot of you may be confused about the whole number grouping or may have not read the long-winded article from the link but here is just a general idea of what the numbers represent: STAGE 1 and 2: I dont think anyone on this site would fall into these categories because they only occur in children most of the time but someone in one of these stages would base there whole argument on the punishment or reward EX:Heinz might steal it because maybe they had children and he might need someone at home to look after them. But maybe he shouldn't steal it because they might put him in prison for more years than he could stand. Stage3: Bases their argument on what is acceptable by their society or there peer group EX:It was really the druggist's fault, he was unfair, trying to overcharge and letting someone die. Heinz loved his wife and wanted to save her. I think anyone would. I don't think they would put him in jail. The judge would look at all sides, and see that the druggist was charging too much. STAGE 4:Believes that society's rules must be followed in order to maintian order EX:I don't want to sound like Spiro Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong, then I think you would have chaos. The only thing I think we have in civilization nowadays is some sort of legal structure which people are sort of bound to follow. [Society needs] a centralizing framework. STAGE 5:Believes that a society should be more democratic (the article said that a Stage 4 didn't consider that society isn't always right and that that kinda strict society could resemble a totalitarian type of government). Stage 5 respondents basically believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all. Majority rules type thing. Stress individual rights. EX:It is the husband's duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is more important than property. STAGE 6: Believes that even though the majority believes something doesn't make it right. THey believe in "civil disobiedience" resembling Martin Luther King sitting in at "white only" areas and being put in jail for it because he thought the treatment of blacks was unfair. Stress true justice over individual rights. EX: (very close to stage 5, but most people don't reach it, maybe in some cases but not all cases, no examples were given). Just to let you know the article did an excellent job at desrcibing it. A lot better than I did here.
Here is a summary from the article: At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others. At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole. At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.
