I once did morality experiment in a psychology class I took, and since It was one of the more interesting things we did I thought I'd share it here.

Fill free to play along

Heinz's Dilemma:

"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?" Please explain why he was either right or wrong.

The reasoning behind your answer is more important then the answer itself.

To see what stage of moral development your in according to Kohlberg, find the reasoning that is most similar to yours in the chart below.

Also, remember this was just a theory by Lawrence Kohlberg. According to him as we grow older we progress through different stages of morality.

======================
Stages of Moral development
======================
Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person. Or: Heinz should steal the medicine because it 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.

Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would more likely languish in a jail cell than over his wife's death.

Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband. Or: Heinz should not steal the drug because 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.

Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal. Or: Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but 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.

Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.

Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.

Post edited at 12:31 am on June 17, 2011 by Mr Hello

-------
I discover elements and name them after my pets!
Rutherfordium? That was me. Great dog.

INDUBITABLY ABLE VERBOSE POSIT.

-------
You can't have buttsex without subtext!

And stage six against the theft doesn't really make sense to me.

If I were Heinz, I would probably ACT as a stage 2, but my justification would be 5, or 6.

-------
You can't have buttsex without subtext!

I'm not okay with letting the wife die just because some pharmacist wants to get rich quickly.

---

The problem with 5 is that $2000 for what costs around $200 isn't necessarily fair compensation. As for "others may need the medicine just as badly," he's not necessarily preventing others from having the cure. Clearly paying ~$200 would be enough to fund what he took.  
So the fix is to steal the medicine and leave an actual compensation (or even the thousand).

---

That's the whole angle of the experiment. It's meant to portray this scientist as a greedy SOB, and how that will influences your decision. The experiment was designed as either he steals it or he doesn't. There isn't a middle ground of paying the pharmacist back, not in this example at least.

Post edited at 12:25 am on June 17, 2011 by Mr Hello

-------
I discover elements and name them after my pets!
Rutherfordium? That was me. Great dog.

---

I'm okay with stealing the medicine and dropping $200 to compensate for the production process (or if I was feeling particularly charitable, but probably not since this pharmacist is a dick, the full $1000).

I'm not okay with letting the wife die just because some pharmacist wants to get rich quickly.

---

---

Quote: from blufindr at 8:21 am on June 17, 2011

---

I'm okay with stealing the medicine and dropping $200 to compensate for the production process (or if I was feeling particularly charitable, but probably not since this pharmacist is a dick, the full $1000).  

 I'm not okay with letting the wife die just because some pharmacist wants to get rich quickly.

---

and if all scientists who developed new medications gained nothing for their efforts but a small sum to cover production cost, how many new medications would be developed?

---

I'm okay with compensating them for their time as well, but if this pharmacist won't even let the guy pay it off in instalments then he's a class-A dick.

---

I'm okay with compensating them for their time as well, but if this pharmacist won't even let the guy pay it off in instalments then he's a class-A dick.

---

just how much lawlessness are you willing to tolerate in the name of preserving life? if all starving people everywhere rioted and looted the property of their richer neighbours, would this be just and good? would the world function better once the dust had settled?

---

Quote: from sertrbl at 12:10 am on June 17, 2011

---

The problem with 5 is that $2000 for what costs around $200 isn't necessarily fair compensation. As for "others may need the medicine just as badly," he's not necessarily preventing others from having the cure. Clearly paying ~$200 would be enough to fund what he took.
So the fix is to steal the medicine and leave an actual compensation (or even the thousand).

---

That's the whole angle of the experiment. It's meant to portray this scientist as a greedy SOB, and how that will influences your decision. The experiment was designed as either he steals it or he doesn't. There isn't a middle ground of paying the pharmacist back, not in this example at least.

---

---

Quote: from Mr Hello at 3:22 am on June 17, 2011

---

Quote: from sertrbl at 12:10 am on June 17, 2011

---

The problem with 5 is that $2000 for what costs around $200 isn't necessarily fair compensation. As for "others may need the medicine just as badly," he's not necessarily preventing others from having the cure. Clearly paying ~$200 would be enough to fund what he took.
So the fix is to steal the medicine and leave an actual compensation (or even the thousand).

---

That's the whole angle of the experiment. It's meant to portray this scientist as a greedy SOB, and how that will influences your decision. The experiment was designed as either he steals it or he doesn't. There isn't a middle ground of paying the pharmacist back, not in this example at least.

---

I'm not sure that makes sense. Obviously, it asks the question of "is it okay to go against the scientist's wishes to save someone," but there are many ways to go about that option. In reality, stealing and paying is just another way of justifying the "do steal" option.

---

Obviously nothing in regards to morality is black and white, but Kohlberg tried to streamline this experiment as much as he could. Otherwise If we added in other options and various middle grounds, there could be 50 stages in his moral development model.  

Hell, what if Heinz stole from someone who he was certain wouldn't catch him in order pay the pharmacist? Or, what if he sold a vital organ, thereby killing himself, so he could raise the money. There could be hundreds of different nodes that could be added into the equation.  

When I asked our survey participants a lot of questions like these were asked, but for the sake of the experiment the line had to drawn somewhere.

Post edited at 1:20 am on June 17, 2011 by Mr Hello

-------
I discover elements and name them after my pets!
Rutherfordium? That was me. Great dog.

---

Quote: from blufindr at 8:28 am on June 17, 2011

---

I'm okay with compensating them for their time as well, but if this pharmacist won't even let the guy pay it off in instalments then he's a class-A dick.

---

and we aren't dicks for living the way we do when so many children are dying for want of clean water?

just how much lawlessness are you willing to tolerate in the name of preserving life? if all starving people everywhere rioted and looted the property of their richer neighbours, would this be just and good? would the world function better once the dust had settled?

---

Dunno about you, but about half my paycheck goes to charity — and yeah, some of those charities do deal with making clean water accessible in the third world.

I think there should have been a compromise.  Ideally the pharmacist would accept the $1000 as a down-payment and then arrange another way to pay back the rest, but if that's not going to happen and the woman will die without it, then I'm not entirely sure it's immoral to steal the drug needed to save her life.

Obvs after it's done and dusted, they could try to work out a way to settle the debt, but until then...

Rereading, stage 4 is definitely what I meant and I should have reviewed all the options before answering. If I were in his position I would steal the drug then turn myself in.

Post edited at 8:30 am on June 17, 2011 by allsmiles

-------
When they leave me, they're all smiles.
When they leave you, they're in tears.