Heinz dilemma


The Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as follows:
From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:
#LevelStageHeinz should steal the drug, becauseHeinz should not steal the drug, because
1Pre-ConventionalObedienceIt is only worth $200 and not how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.He will consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person.
1Pre-ConventionalSelf-interestHe will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he has to serve a prison sentence.Prison is an awful place, and he would more likely languish in a jail cell than over his wife's death.
2ConventionalConformityHis wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband.Stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he has tried to do everything he can without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.
2ConventionalLaw-and-orderHis wife will benefit, but he should also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed.
Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.
The law prohibits stealing.
3Post-ConventionalSocial contract orientationEveryone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law.The scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.
3Post-ConventionalUniversal human ethicsSaving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.Others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.