Question

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that 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 $2,000, ten times more than what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together half of the money. 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.

What is your opinion - should Heinz steal the drug? Yes / No

In a few paragraphs answer why or why not?

Answer 1

Lawrence Kohlberg, developed a theory to understand the moral reasoning of individuals. Every individual goes through different stages of moral reasoning. Each stage has a different phase. Kohlberg introduced the theory to understand the rationale behind an individual's reasoning, when put in a moral dilemma. In his experiment, he constructed a hypothetical situation where an individual was asked how would have they made a moral decision if they were in place of the character in the story narrated to them. One such dilemma posed by Kohlberg was:

A man had a sick wife who was suffering from a rare kind of cancer. However, it was curable, but the drug that would have saved her was extremely expensive. The pharmacist insisted on selling it for $ 2,000 but the man had only $1,000 with him. The man told the pharmacist that he would pay him the money that he has now, and would pay the remaining amount in a few days. The pharmacist refused to budge into the man's plea. The man was so desperate to save his wife that he chose to steal the drug instead.

Individuals who were a part of the experiment were asked what should have the man done and why?

A child at the Preconventional stage of moral development, basis his moral decision or judgment on the repercussions that would follow. At this stage, a child says that the man should have not stolen the drug because it would lead to punishment. The rationale behind concluding the above is, a child feels that actions that lead to positive reinforcements are good and the ones that lead to punishments are bad. The intention is not considered, it is about bad behaviour being unacceptable.

A child's ability to make judgments increases at the Coventional stage of moral development. At this stage they arrive to an understanding that the society runs according to some set norms, social orders and law. The child rationalised the doings of the man and concludes that 'it's alright for the man to steal because he would not be seen bad in the eyes of people, but if he does not save his wife, then he will never be able to look into anybody's eye again'.

In the last stage of moral development at the Postconventional level, Kohlberg suggested that most individuals enter adolescence and adulthood and it is at this stage an individual's ability to rationalise without any preconceived thoughts attached to society or law, increases. An individual arrives at a judgment that there wasn't anything wrong with the man stealing the drug for his wife as there is nothing above humanity.

A law is not morally wrong, but it is how we perceive it. A law is not necessarily to be abided by if it goes against your morality. Laws and norms are set by the society so that the world could function in a more organised way instead of it being haphazard. A morally matured person obeys to moral norms by the society to stay in alignment with society. However, not always. Their moral judgment comes into the picture and they are likely to avoid abiding by norms set by the society which are not rational.