Heinz Dilemma (Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development)

[AB Editor]

Stumbled across this today:



Please watch and make a choice. Let me know which you chose.

[AB Editor]

Here's the wiki on Kohlberg's theory

It's interesting to note the various stages, do you feel this is a real reflection of the kind of moral reasoning you use?

[flump1]

Conventional, true as it happens.

[AB Editor]

It's close isn't it?

I think the longer you take to consider the question the further you move along the scale. It seems to be able increased perspective?

[wildwood]

It is really 'pie in the sky' stuff. One may choose the moral option but what if this happened in real life? Can one really say how we would react before the event?

[woofgang]

When you read the wiki, the decision is not as important as the reasoning in determining which stage of moral development you are at, assuming that you "buy" the stages of moral development that Kohlberg posits.

[AB Editor]

"Can one really say how we would react before the event?"

Well, to some extent we can. Obviously the choice wouldn't be exactly the same as that, nor as simple - but we can take a guess at how we would respond.

"...assuming that you "buy" the stages of moral development that Kohlberg posits."

Do you buy them?

[ummmm]

Post conventional.

I was more thinking about how he could possibly steal the drug though.

[woofgang]

no. I think its more complex than that.

[woofgang]

and, as I said , it seems to be more about the reason for your answer than the answer itself. For instance if you choose option 3, this says that your stage of moral development is 2, conventional but if your reason is that people should take responsibility for their choices and that by stealing the drug and going to court, Heinz is bringing the supposed avarice of the drug company to public attention, then it could be argued that this demonstrates stage 3 (post conventional) thinking. I am also very dubious indeed about the assertion that people who have a higher moral sense have a duty to break laws which they consider to be immoral in their judgement......

[woofgang]

what no discussion??

[NOX]

Post conventional- but then I know that about myself anyway;-)

[AB Editor]

Yes, I am back :) Sorry, been a busy day!

"it seems to be more about the reason for your answer than the answer itself. For instance if you choose option 3, this says that your stage of moral development is 2, conventional but if your reason is that people should take responsibility for their choices and that by stealing the drug and going to court, Heinz is bringing the supposed avarice of the drug company to public attention, then it could be argued that this demonstrates stage 3 (post conventional) thinking."

Definitely agree here. I did feel like the drug company kind of gets "let off" in all cases.

The post-conventional stage seems to be about accepting your inability to effect the situation as much as anything else. Do you think this is part of the "abstraction"?

"I am also very dubious indeed about the assertion that people who have a higher moral sense have a duty to break laws which they consider to be immoral in their judgement......"

Why? I think an immoral law would be worth breaking.

It again, doesn't fit nicely with the idea of the post-conventional morals being based on abstract concepts. What if your abstract concept of "freedom" meant someone was free to kill (to be obvious and blunt in my example)?

[woofgang]

Its the self judgement part that worries me. For instance legal abortion might be though of by some as an immoral law because it infringes the foetus' right to be born. Does this mean that family planning clinics should be firebombed?

Level six in theory might work but once again the concept of I believe this course of action is right, it is against the law so its my duty to break the law (and here's the kicker) WITHOUT HAVING TO ABIDE BY THE CONSEQUENCES OF MY ACTION. By me choice 3 in the video might actually be a level 6 action. It puts the needs of the sick woman before his own, challenges what he believes to be an unjust situation BUT ALSO is prepared to be responsible for his actions and decisions

[jno]

I don't get the first one - he should steal the drug and not go to prison. In real life people don't get to choose whether they go to prison or not when they commit a crime. That's someone else's dilemma, not Heinz's.

I suspect what Heinz would do in real life is start a publicity campaign against the high price of drugs. Granted that drug companies need to cover their costs, the usual way in this country would be to get the authorities (government/council/HA) to repay them, on the grounds of the public interest in keeping people alive... the grounds behind the founding of the NHS.

[ludwig]

I don't think you're actually supposed to make a choice. You just need to be able to understand the options.

ie, if you can understand the moral complexity of why it might be ok for him to steal the drug and yet not go to prison then it shows you're not retarded. - assuming you're an adult of course.