Morality can be defined as how people treat one another.The psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg was particularly interested in this area of study. He used hypothetical situations – a storytelling technique – to engage the interest of his readers. Among these stories, most famous was one known simply as “The Heinz Dilemma.” It goes like this:
A poor man named Heinz has a wife who is sick and dying. There is a new drug available that might save her. The drug is available at a local pharmacy, but it is wildly expensive. Heinz tries to raise money for the drug by going to friends and family. He cannot raise enough. He pleads with the pharmacist, who has invented this new drug. He asks for a discount. The pharmacist refuses to part with the drug for anything but the full price. This is because the pharmacist plans to sell the patent to the drug and become rich. He even refuses to let Heinz pay the money owing for the drug in installments.
Heinz, who has always been an honest man, despairs. He goes home, and looks at his wife, who is lying weakly upon her bed. After she has fallen asleep, Heinz sneaks away from the house. He breaks into the pharmacy and steals the drug that might cure her.
The hypothetical situation captured in The Heinz Dilemma stirs questions connected to both morals and wisdom. We might ask, for example, about the morality of the theft. Would it have made any difference if the person dying were a child rather than Heinz’s wife? Would it have made any difference if the pharmacist himself were very poor? Regarding wisdom, we wonder how someone truly wise might react to this turn of events in his or her life. For example, the philosopher Socrates allowed himself to be put to death for the sake of his scruples. Yet he had the chance to go into exile and escape from prison. Had he taken either of these routes, would history have still remembered him as being wise?
We could also understand the Heinz Dilemma as an ethical problem for the community. Although we usually consider wisdom as a personal quality, our actions naturally influence society. We could think of the pharmacist as a tyrant, and of Heinz as a defender of human decency. Stealing the drug could be understood as an act of moral and ethical rebellion in the face of outrageous greed. Henry David Thoreau, the revered American writer, encouraged acts of civil disobedience for the sake of the common good. His defiant approach has been emulated by many social activists, including Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Stages of Moral Development
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development has three levels. The higher our level of moral development, the better we are at resolving moral dilemmas.
The three levels are pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional morality.
The pre-conventional level is common in children, although adults can also slip into this basic form of reasoning. At this level, one might not steal because the result of being caught would be punishment.
Next is the conventional level. It’s typical of adolescents, but also common among adults. The person who operates at this level would not steal because of the social taboo against such an action.
Finally, those in the post-conventional level understand rules as tools that help maintain social order. They do not understand rules as decrees to be obeyed without question. They operate with personal sets of ethics, developed around virtues in which they have unshakable confidence.
Under ordinary circumstances, the person with post-conventional moral reasoning would have too much personal integrity to steal. That said, this same person might break into a pharmacy to steal the life-saving drug for a dying relative. Problems that aren’t straightforward, such as Heinz’s dilemma, require a special type of thinking, or knowing. When we reason outside the limits of ordinary ways of thinking, we move into the realm of wisdom.
Question for Discussion:
Heinz stole the drugs to save his wife. Was his theft wise? Why or why not?
A poor man named Heinz has a wife who is sick and dying. There is a new drug available that might save her. The drug is available at a local pharmacy, but it is wildly expensive. Heinz tries to raise money for the drug by going to friends and family. He cannot raise enough. He pleads with the pharmacist, who has invented this new drug. He asks for a discount. The pharmacist refuses to part with the drug for anything but the full price. This is because the pharmacist plans to sell the patent to the drug and become rich. He even refuses to let Heinz pay the money owing for the drug in installments.
Heinz, who has always been an honest man, despairs. He goes home, and looks at his wife, who is lying weakly upon her bed. After she has fallen asleep, Heinz sneaks away from the house. He breaks into the pharmacy and steals the drug that might cure her.
The hypothetical situation captured in The Heinz Dilemma stirs questions connected to both morals and wisdom. We might ask, for example, about the morality of the theft. Would it have made any difference if the person dying were a child rather than Heinz’s wife? Would it have made any difference if the pharmacist himself were very poor? Regarding wisdom, we wonder how someone truly wise might react to this turn of events in his or her life. For example, the philosopher Socrates allowed himself to be put to death for the sake of his scruples. Yet he had the chance to go into exile and escape from prison. Had he taken either of these routes, would history have still remembered him as being wise?
We could also understand the Heinz Dilemma as an ethical problem for the community. Although we usually consider wisdom as a personal quality, our actions naturally influence society. We could think of the pharmacist as a tyrant, and of Heinz as a defender of human decency. Stealing the drug could be understood as an act of moral and ethical rebellion in the face of outrageous greed. Henry David Thoreau, the revered American writer, encouraged acts of civil disobedience for the sake of the common good. His defiant approach has been emulated by many social activists, including Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Stages of Moral Development
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development has three levels. The higher our level of moral development, the better we are at resolving moral dilemmas.
The three levels are pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional morality.
The pre-conventional level is common in children, although adults can also slip into this basic form of reasoning. At this level, one might not steal because the result of being caught would be punishment.
Next is the conventional level. It’s typical of adolescents, but also common among adults. The person who operates at this level would not steal because of the social taboo against such an action.
Finally, those in the post-conventional level understand rules as tools that help maintain social order. They do not understand rules as decrees to be obeyed without question. They operate with personal sets of ethics, developed around virtues in which they have unshakable confidence.
Under ordinary circumstances, the person with post-conventional moral reasoning would have too much personal integrity to steal. That said, this same person might break into a pharmacy to steal the life-saving drug for a dying relative. Problems that aren’t straightforward, such as Heinz’s dilemma, require a special type of thinking, or knowing. When we reason outside the limits of ordinary ways of thinking, we move into the realm of wisdom.
Question for Discussion:
Heinz stole the drugs to save his wife. Was his theft wise? Why or why not?
