Moral Thinking

[leviofoley]

Although I'm not supposed to do this, I would also like to say that this kind of situation would probably not crop up in real life, as no normal person (that is, anybody who's not a doctor, chemist, or pharmacist) really has physical access to medicine, other than over-the-counter drugs.  In our day medicine is not really something that can be bought/sold/stolen on an individual level, but is rather something that can be prescribed or not prescribed.  Unless this man plans to break in to the laboritories in god-knows-where where they make this particular string of chemical compounds, it's unlikely that he even has the ability to steal the medicine.

[Chaos]

No "what-ifs".

No "in real life,..."

The question IS the question.  All other information is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Wife is dieing from a sickness.  Man can not afford drug.  Man steals drug to save wife.  Period.

Right/Wrong, Why?

If you want it, here is a more fleshed out version:

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 produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband 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 the man got desperate and broke into the druggist's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should he have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

[Scotty]

No.

Stealing is illegal.

Dieing isn't.

[igufed]

He shouldn't have stolen it.

Dying happens.

[Lucifer]

I believe the druggist is morally wrong. He is gaining unnecessary profits (unnecessary meaning he did not need the extra $1000 in order to live) while others are dying. Of course then the question becomes, is it morally right to steal from who you believe to be a morally wrong person? In a general sense I don't think it is, and that kind of thinking only leads to a circle of morally wrong actions. In this case the man had no choice, he needed that drug ASAP. The druggist could not be reasoned with, and complaining to a higher authority about the situation would take too long, his wife's condition was already severe. Now just because his situation was dire doesn't make stealing suddenly legal, his actions were still morally wrong in the eyes of society.

*edit*
I think his morals were in the right place, but I would then agree with Meiun in that for it to be morally right, he would then admit to the crime. Course I also think the damned druggist should be penalized too.

I know that's not really a straight answer, but whatever.

The real question that's bugging me, is if he's such a master thief that he can steal a $2000 drug, how the !@#$ is he poor?

[Scotty]

if he's such a master thief that he can steal a $2000 drug, how the !@#$ is he poor?

By master, you must mean his baseball bat through the window method, right?

[Lucifer]

if he's such a master thief that he can steal a $2000 drug, how the !@#$ is he poor?

By master, you must mean his baseball bat through the window method, right?

I suppose that's true, if so he doesn't even need to turn himself in, he'd pretty much be the first suspect anyways...lol.

[runeskap master117]

this is the same principle as stealing a candybar from seven 11

[Jackabomb]

My earlier statement holds true as far as the stealing with one alteration.

He should punch that druggist in the face for being such a dang jerk. Dying happens, Yes. That doesn't mean it should happen just because some greedy gob wants to get rich.

[Lingus]

No.

Stealing is illegal.

Dieing isn't.

I'm going to disagree here (not to break Chaos' rule about not commenting on other's responses, but I just wanted to use Scott's post as a starting point.) Stealing is illegal, yes. But breaking the law is not necessarily immoral. The question is whether he was morally right or wrong. Not legally. I personally think that standing by and doing nothing while someone dies even though you have the ability to do something, no matter what that something is (as long as you are not harming others in the process) is immoral. And what I mean by not harming others would be putting someone else in a position that they would come to physical pain or death. If you steal the drug, and by consequence someone else will not have it, that's wrong. If there is ample amounts of the drug, then you're fine. The wellfare of the person/people selling the drugs is not really in question, so by stealing something from them they won't really be harmed... maybe inconvenienced.

I guess for me it's a question of degrees in this case. If you do one thing someone dies, if you do another someone is inconvenienced. So there's no real question in my mind what option is morally right. The legality of the matter is an entirely different subject.

[Chaos]

Well, I think the topic enough people have seen the topic for me to post the other half.

Backstory
I originally read about Kohlberg's Stages of Morality, and this (the original post's text) in my Psychology textbook when I was taking the class a year ago.  I thought it was rather interesting at the time.  Last night, I was chatting with Jake and he was telling me about a debate he was having on the GMC about Pirating, and it made me think of it again.  I decided I'd post it up in here and see what sort of responses I'd get.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived of by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Lawrence Kohlberg, while a psychology postgraduate student at the University of Chicago[1], expanded and developed this theory throughout the course of his life.

The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.[2] Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages studied earlier by Piaget,[3] who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages.[2] Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice, and that it continued throughout the individual's lifetime,[4] a notion that spawned dialogue on the philosophical implications of such research.

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:

    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 produce. 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 Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?[1]

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.

Pre-Conventional

The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners at this level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development, and is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner. A child with preconventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society's conventions regarding what is right or wrong, but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.[7][8][9]

In Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished. "The last time I did that I got spanked so I will not do it again." The worse the punishment for the act is, the more "bad" the act is perceived to be.[14] This can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion to their suffering. It is "egocentric", lacking recognition that others' points of view are different from one's own.[15] There is "deference to superior power or prestige".[15]

Stage two (self-interest driven) espouses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever is in the individual's best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further the individual's own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" mentality.[2] The lack of a societal perspective in the pre-conventional level is quite different from the social contract (stage five), as all actions have the purpose of serving the individual's own needs or interests. For the stage two theorist, the world's perspective is often seen as morally relative.

Conventional

The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Those who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.[7][8][9]

In Stage three (interpersonal accord and conformity driven), the self enters society by filling social roles. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's accordance with the perceived role. They try to be a "good boy" or "good girl" to live up to these expectations,[2] having learned that there is inherent value in doing so. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude and the "golden rule". "I want to be liked and thought well of; apparently, not being naughty makes people like me." Desire to maintain rules and authority exists only to further support these social roles. The intentions of actions play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; "they mean well ...".[2]

In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would?thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.[2]

Post-Conventional

The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, consists of stages five and six of moral development. There is a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual's own perspective may take precedence over society's view; they may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. These people live by their own abstract principles about right and wrong-principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. Because of this level's "nature of self before others", the behavior of post-conventional individuals, especially those at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.

People who exhibit postconventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms - ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Contemporary theorists often speculate that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.[7][8][9]

In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid dictums. Those which do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet "the greatest good for the greatest number of people".[8] This is achieved through majority decision, and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.[16] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another's shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.[17] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.[13]

Further stages

In Kohlberg's empirical studies of individuals throughout their life Kohlberg observed that some had apparently undergone moral stage regression. This could be resolved either by allowing for moral regression or by extending the theory. Kohlberg chose the latter, postulating the existence of sub-stages in which the emerging stage has not yet been fully integrated into the personality.[8] In particular Kohlberg noted a stage 4? or 4+, a transition from stage four to stage five, that shared characteristics of both.[8] In this stage the individual is disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning; culpability is frequently turned from being defined by society to viewing society itself as culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of stage two, as the individual views those interests of society which conflict with their own as being relatively and morally wrong.[8] Kohlberg noted that this was often observed in students entering college.[8][13]

Kohlberg suggested that there may be a seventh stage?Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation?which linked religion with moral reasoning.[18] Kohlberg's difficulties in obtaining empirical evidence for even a sixth stage,[13] however, led him to emphasize the speculative nature of his seventh stage.[5]



The Stages

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.

Quotes from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

[Jackabomb]

Fascinating stuff, this psychology, as you earthlings call it. I'd say I'm at stage 4.

/mumbletoself
Hmm...so maybe that's what I should take as one of my semester long electives...don't feel like taking German IV...With my fine arts credit out of the way, I'll have two free spaces to fill, not just one...could take computer sciences again...that would still leave one slot...then again...psychology's a semester long course...if only I hadn't taken health...

[Scotty]

Good luck getting more than 75% of the community to read that Chris ;)

[EpicPhailure]

That IS pretty interesting. I'm surprised that I actually read it all, instead of going 'tl;dr lolololyoutube'. However, I am puzzled at one section of the article. That would be

...six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.

in the first quote box in Chaos's post. If each stage is essentially "better" than the last, then it's saying that the Human Rights point of view is "better" than the Law and Order point of view? How do you compare those?

[Trogdor]

Thank you for posting that article, Chaos. I found it fascinating. Twice I was going to post a response in this topic but each ended up being too long, not complying with your wishes, or going off on a slight tangent and deviating from the topic at hand, so I just clicked out of it (which actually happens often to me). I can post a response now because these two sentences:

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.

say the exact (literally the exact) same thing I would have said in four paragraphs and a good hour spent piecing my thoughts together. I second whoever said you should make more of these kinds of scenarios.