Let's have a little thought exercise, shall we?
A man's wife is dieing and she needs a certain medicine that is far too expensive for them. The man begs for the medicine, but is told that it required a lot of money to develop this medicine and it cannot be given away. So, the man steals the medicine for his wife.
Was he right or wrong to steal the medicine, and why do you think so?
(Answer both questions, or don't answer at all. Don't debate other people's answers. For now, just post yours.)
I say he is in his right mind to have stolen the medicine. The act of preserving life is one of the most basic, and first instincts all living creatures possess, and as humans we see the need to preserve both ourselves and others.
But if we're talking modern sense, I think that the medicine of today is far too over priced, and has been over come with greed, therefore it's more about getting money than saving lives.
The man's intentions were pure.
If the primary goal is the man's wife's survival, stealing the medicine was the best possible choice. Whether or not you value the life of the wife over the laws and moral codes against stealing is entirely up to opinion.
He was right to steal the medicine because he is saving life at the expense of money, (by stealing it) not at the expense of somebody else's life. Life > Money
I think it would normally be wrong to steal, but in a situation where it is necessary to save someone's life, it's right.
If someone you love dearly is dieing then you must do whatever is necessary to save him/her. Love is more important than money. What the man did was right because he was doing what basically anyone else would do in a similar situation, and what I said in the previous sentence.
Quote from: Chaos on March 04, 2010, 10:27:51 PMWas he right or wrong to steal the medicine,
Wrong.
Quote from: Chaos on March 04, 2010, 10:27:51 PMand why do you think so?
She should have died. Sure, walk around and condone activity like that, pretty soon you'll have your neighbor tapping your gas tank because he couldn't afford the fuel prices, but he has to get to work in the morning, or else he can't afford the food he needs to feed his family and they'll ultimately starve. She should have died, and he thinks he just beat fate. Just wait until she heals up, goes outside to grab the paper, and gets hit by the bus. I'll laugh, when he gets the news in prison.
I love you Scotty.
Is this supposed to be a difficult question?
He was right. Like Mr. Pwnage said, Life > Money. Stealing the medicine is a property crime, not stealing it is an omission that leads to someone's death.
I don't think you're going to get anyone to answer otherwise ('cept Scotty).
It's wrong. It's against the law, nuff said.
With this in mind though, that system is flawed and pathetic. America's health system needs to.. as we can put it "grow up" and stop being a greedy bitch. That doesen't happen in canada, or europe or anywhere else with a decent health system for that matter. If your dying, the government should help you, not just go Oh your poor, tooo bad!
Not to mention it's a stupid system anyways, because if the government keeps the person alive they will continue to contribute to society, taxes, etc etc.
@Leviofoley: Do not question the question. Only answer it.
Do not read any farther into the question than what is presented.
I don't know. If the medicine was unique or very limited, I'd say it was wrong for him to think that his wife was more important than the life that could have been saved. But if there were a lot of this medicine, then I would say it was morally wrong for the company to charge so much for it in the first place.
We base life off being so special just because we don't want to loose it our self's. When in reality meaning, reason, right and wrong, etc, are just values we make up to suet the one thing we really try and retain. And that thing is happiness. We are all selfish and do things to maintain our happiness. Even when giving your life for another you did that because you thought that was best and world have a better payoff and makes you happier then if you did not. Even killing ones self is an act of choosing that death is better then living. Or in other words makes you more happy.
happiness, what it does is tries to set up a ground that will be the best in persevering this thing we know of as life. Buts its got its imperfections like everything in this world. But without it we would not be here.
happiness tells me that's a good thing i have it. But in reality its the same as everything else and just sits on the brink of our existing world doing what it does. Meaning is an illusion set up by happiness because that's what life does. Like how fire is hot and space is empty.
skip here for my answer and don't want to read my bad writing! With that in mind my happiness tells me if i saw this randomly in real life and i know nothing about them except for what you said in the paragraph then i would not know what to think. The reason why is because i know too little about the whole thing.
@Art: Refer to my previous post. Do not read farther into the question than what is presented.
Who's to say that the law set forth by the government is right? Yes, in the 10 commandments it says not to steal, but it also says not to murder. Would the person who owns the medicine not be taking the life of the woman's if he keeps it from her because of his greed for money?
And if the medicine is over priced, he might as well be stealing himself. The man who sells the medicine should keep the price at something that is affordable to the ones who need it, otherwise it defeats the purpose of owning it, unless of course you're expecting to cheat someone of their money.
and @Seifer
Canada's health system has been severely criticized, as quoted from wiki;
The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.
The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.
The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.
Another study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, broadly in line with the current official statistics; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.
If you have to wait that long, and something is critical, then there's more possibility for something to go wrong during that large gap of time. Which makes Canada's Health Care System not as efficient as one would hope for it to be.
But, I personally think that Canada in the long run has better health care than the US. Despite there being shortages of medication, I'm sure that the proof of the longer life expectancy supports Canada's reasoning.
And @Luci
You have a good point.
That is all Xp
@chaos
I did not.
read:
Quote from: me....if i saw this randomly in real life and i know nothing about them except for what you said in the paragraph.....
The rest on top is just what i think about life. I thought it was somewhat on topic. :P maybe i should have saved that for a different topic.
By the way, I want to clarify, this is merely a critical thinking exercise. There is no right or wrong answer, and I'm not going to jump in at the end of the topic and start mocking people for their posts. All I want is whether you believe he is right or wrong to steal the drug, and more importantly, WHY you think it is right or wrong.
Quote from: Chaos on March 04, 2010, 10:27:51 PM
(Answer both questions, or don't answer at all. Don't debate other people's answers. For now, just post yours.)
So how 'bout that?
Quote from: Scotty on March 05, 2010, 12:04:25 AM
Quote from: Chaos on March 04, 2010, 10:27:51 PM
(Answer both questions, or don't answer at all. Don't debate other people's answers. For now, just post yours.)
So how 'bout that?
Why don't you just go ask water to be dry.
maybe if there was a way in which we would not see the other post until we made ours. or make it a poll in which we cant see untill we vote (and have a commit place for our why)
Quote from: ARTgames on March 05, 2010, 12:07:16 AM
Quote from: Scotty on March 05, 2010, 12:04:25 AM
Quote from: Chaos on March 04, 2010, 10:27:51 PM
(Answer both questions, or don't answer at all. Don't debate other people's answers. For now, just post yours.)
So how 'bout that?
Why don't you just go ask water to be dry.
maybe if there was a way in which we would not see the other post until we made ours. or make it a poll in which we cant see untill we vote (and have a commit place for our why)
It's called self control. Try and exercise it a bit.
The man was right to steal it.
The only reason that we even believe in the concept of stealing is because of how humans are so possessive of their own material matters.
We actually talked about almost the exact same question in my ethics class last semester, the only difference was that it said the man wanting the medicine offered to pay later but the seller still refused. The best answer I can come up with would be to steal the drugs, leave what money you can pay there for the owner, and then after giving the meds to your wife turn yourself in/accept the consequences of your theft. It would still be far better than simply letting her die.
Quote from: Meiun on March 05, 2010, 12:17:19 AM
We actually talked about almost the exact same question in my ethics class last semester, the only difference was that it said the man wanting the medicine offered to pay later but the seller still refused. The best answer I can come up with would be to steal the drugs, leave what money you can pay there for the owner, and then after giving the meds to your wife turn yourself in/accept the consequences of your theft. It would still be far better than simply letting her die.
Silly Meiun. You didn't answer either question! :P
Was he right or wrong to steal the drugs, and why do you say so?
Quote from: Scotty on March 05, 2010, 12:10:32 AM
Quote from: ARTgames on March 05, 2010, 12:07:16 AM
Quote from: Scotty on March 05, 2010, 12:04:25 AM
Quote from: Chaos on March 04, 2010, 10:27:51 PM
(Answer both questions, or don't answer at all. Don't debate other people's answers. For now, just post yours.)
So how 'bout that?
Why don't you just go ask water to be dry.
maybe if there was a way in which we would not see the other post until we made ours. or make it a poll in which we cant see untill we vote (and have a commit place for our why)
It's called self control. Try and exercise it a bit.
And my replay still the same:
Why don't you just go ask water to be dry?
I agree to what you are saying its just i don't think everyone here will do that. Or in other words i dont have faith in people here will follow that. But hey im wrong alot!
Also im getting off topic. i should really stop now.
edit:
my bad i need to learn to stop. Ill try and exercise my self control now.
Quote from: Chaos on March 05, 2010, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: Meiun on March 05, 2010, 12:17:19 AM
We actually talked about almost the exact same question in my ethics class last semester, the only difference was that it said the man wanting the medicine offered to pay later but the seller still refused. The best answer I can come up with would be to steal the drugs, leave what money you can pay there for the owner, and then after giving the meds to your wife turn yourself in/accept the consequences of your theft. It would still be far better than simply letting her die.
Silly Meiun. You didn't answer either question! :P
Was he right or wrong to steal the drugs, and why do you say so?
Stealing is "wrong" nomatter how you cut it, but he would be far more wrong to have not done it. It is really a lose lose situation, so the best he could do would simply be to do what he has to do for his wife, then do the best he can to fix the situation with the stealing afterwards.
Quote from: Meiun on March 05, 2010, 12:24:01 AM
Quote from: Chaos on March 05, 2010, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: Meiun on March 05, 2010, 12:17:19 AM
We actually talked about almost the exact same question in my ethics class last semester, the only difference was that it said the man wanting the medicine offered to pay later but the seller still refused. The best answer I can come up with would be to steal the drugs, leave what money you can pay there for the owner, and then after giving the meds to your wife turn yourself in/accept the consequences of your theft. It would still be far better than simply letting her die.
Silly Meiun. You didn't answer either question! :P
Was he right or wrong to steal the drugs, and why do you say so?
Stealing is "wrong" nomatter how you cut it, but he would be far more wrong to have not done it. It is really a lose lose situation, so the best he could do would simply be to do what he has to do for his wife, then do the best he can to fix the situation with the stealing afterwards.
But that's not necessarily what he did. Do you think what he did was right or wrong? The question wasn't asking what you think he should have done.
No, becuase there could of been better methods of obtaining the money to pay for the medicine, such as getting a loan.
i think it is wrong, to steal the drugs that is. could go into the whole religious thing like god says it is her time to end. but i don't really think that would be a great answer. Also, is this sickness she has helped along by herself, such as lung cancer and smoking? Or brain damage from a car accident from talking on the phone? if it was her fault for getting into the position, then it is completely wrong to take the drugs simply because of the fact that someone else could have used them. besides, everything dies eventually, just face it people. You will die, i will die, meiun will die, Obama will die, everyone does, whether its from a gunshot, stillbirth, or just plain out old age of 127 years old.
Quotemeiun will die
HERESY!!!!
Well, I am a "Straight-up Christian military kid" by verbatim quote from the people at my school. As such this question is fairly simple for me and doesn't require complex mutually contradicting morals or human ethics or other fancy politically correct mumbo-jumbo.
The man was wrong to steal the drugs. The bible says "Thou shalt not steal." The end does not justify the means. While nearly all of the old laws laid down in the Old Testament remain unaltered a few have been specifically changed or repealed later in the New Testament. For instance, animal sacrifice? Not anymore. The same goes for the "Eye for an eye" dictum which still forms the backbone of all human Law today. In the New Testament, we are specifically commanded, "Repay no one evil for evil..."
Thus, the man is also violating this rule if he attempts to justify his actions through some fault of the guy who sells the drug like, overpricing and such. Since the end does not justify the means ever, problem solved.
The woman dies and the man can hold a funeral like everybody else.
And chaos, this is awesome. Do another when this one peters out.
What if because he stole the medicine, the people who owned it lose all their money and are forced to live on the street where they're kidnapped, tortured and murdered by a hobo serial killer.
All what-if's aside, I understand the necessity to try and sustain life, especially that of which is dear to you. If you think you can cheat death, prepare to suffer the relevant consequences. You steal medicine, you're going to burn for it. People, while sympathetic, are also naturally selfish. Half the shit you watch from Hollywood is a dime a dozen when it comes to someone making the ultimate sacrifice to save someone else. Most people would back out. Those who do would rather the bitch go and steal it herself if she wants it that bad. Hell, I'll even wheel her broke ass in to grab it off the shelf, but I won't be the one to touch the bottle. Sure, I'll still burn, but she's gonna burn longer! I'm not broke, so why should I go down for being perfectly healthy?
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.
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?
No.
Stealing is illegal.
Dieing isn't.
He shouldn't have stolen it.
Dying happens.
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?
Quote from: Lucifer on March 05, 2010, 02:53:51 PM
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?
Quote from: Scotty on March 05, 2010, 02:57:49 PM
Quote from: Lucifer on March 05, 2010, 02:53:51 PM
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.
this is the same principle as stealing a candybar from seven 11
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.
Quote from: Scotty on March 05, 2010, 02:31:34 PM
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.
Well, I think the topic enough people have seen the topic for me to post the other half.
BackstoryI 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.
QuoteKohlberg'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.
QuoteHeinz 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.
Quote
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
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...
Good luck getting more than 75% of the community to read that Chris ;)
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
Quote...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?
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:
QuoteHeinz 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.
That was me. It would be cool to add gradually more complex elements(relationships, traumatic experiences, etc..)
He should have Kept the pills and sold them for Cash, and just let the bitch die. 8)
Thank you for posting that, Chaos, I found it fascinating. As I am in high school, I see a lot of stage three moral opinions from my peers and I think it would be beneficial if this article were to be part of a mandatory high school course for people to realize the basis of their moral decisions.
Glad you guys enjoyed it. Psychology is one class I would definitely recommend to anyone considering it. It is an extremely interesting subject, imo.
Quote from: Chaos on March 07, 2010, 07:43:39 PM
Glad you guys enjoyed it. Psychology is one class I would definitely recommend to anyone considering it. It is an extremely interesting subject, imo.
Will it help me understand women? Judging by your lacking of any social interaction with chicks, I'd guess no, therefor, a waste of a class!
Quote from: Scotty on March 07, 2010, 08:23:57 PM
Quote from: Chaos on March 07, 2010, 07:43:39 PM
Glad you guys enjoyed it. Psychology is one class I would definitely recommend to anyone considering it. It is an extremely interesting subject, imo.
Will it help me understand women? Judging by your lacking of any social interaction with chicks, I'd guess no, therefor, a waste of a class!
That would have been far more of a 'zing' if, A.) You actually needed any help interacting with women, B.) I actually had a lack of social interaction with women, and C.) You hadn't already told me on MSN that you had made it your mission the past couple days to be as big a dick as you could possibly manage.
Oh well.
I have a question that relates to the topic, but not the original question... O_o
I hate it when people are rude.
I hate it when people are both purposely rude, and unintentionally rude.
I hate rude people.
When someone is being disrespectful, and completely ignoring the fact that they're a neuscense, I hate that.
So, when a white person does it I hate it, and when a black person does it, I hate it, o-o
But does it make me a racist if I find that more black people tend to be rude?
Quote from: Ciro on March 07, 2010, 09:24:51 PM
I have a question that relates to the topic, but not the original question... O_o
I hate it when people are rude.
I hate it when people are both purposely rude, and unintentionally rude.
I hate rude people.
When someone is being disrespectful, and completely ignoring the fact that they're a neuscense, I hate that.
So, when a white person does it I hate it, and when a black person does it, I hate it, o-o
But does it make me a racist if I find that more black people tend to be rude?
Doesn't matter what people say majority of stereotypes are true. Though you can't obviously judge every person based on stereotypes. Because everyone is different. Fact is though, Majority of people who say they aren't "racist" Might still prefer the company of white people compared to black people, and vice versa.
When you get down to the point, the only true way to be "Racist" is to literally have a strong since of hate for a race, for no specific reason other than they are different.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 06, 2010, 12:39:49 AM
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: QuoteHeinz 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.
Trogdor, my post actually was in line with Stage 6. I love that my moral stance is viewed as one of the highest in this context. The fact that it is not even proven as existing because not enough people exhibit the behavior is amazing. I guess based on this topic it makes sense. I don't think anyone else responded in the same way. There was mostly stage 4, and some stage 5.
But anyways, I think the difference is what you say you would do and what you would actually do... It might be different for some people.
He was wrong to steal the medicine, because stealing is wrong NO matter what.
If I had been the one who got stolen from, I would have been quick to forgive.
But if I was a greedy seller, then... good thing I'm not.
~Aqua
Quote from: Ciro on March 07, 2010, 09:24:51 PM
But does it make me a racist if I find that more black people tend to be rude?
Of course you are! But that's becuase the meaning of racism has been significantlly changed by the media. Everything is racist now, or atleast to someone else. For example, this Australian KFC ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaZMM-MVBMA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaZMM-MVBMA)), which was misunderstood by Americans, see (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc3PI6YJ5mQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc3PI6YJ5mQ)) for a good responce to this issue, but I warn Americans might be offended by some of his comments towards the end of the video.
Anyway. I personly think your not "racist". Rayu puts it nicely that you do not have a "sinse of hate for a race, for no specific reason other than they are different."
Quote from: Lingus on March 07, 2010, 09:31:10 PM
Trogdor, my post actually was in line with Stage 6. I love that my moral stance is viewed as one of the highest in this context. The fact that it is not even proven as existing because not enough people exhibit the behavior is amazing. I guess based on this topic it makes sense. I don't think anyone else responded in the same way. There was mostly stage 4, and some stage 5.
But anyways, I think the difference is what you say you would do and what you would actually do... It might be different for some people.
Coincidentally, it was your reply that gave me the initiative to try posting again, though I couldn't really expound upon the issue without going off on a tangent or adding anything that you didn't already say. It makes sense to me that hardly anyone's level of morality is at Stage 6 simply because it would be a horrible evolutionary trait, one that has been slowly weeded out over thousands of years. Jesus, Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, and Mother Teresa come to mind when contemplating those who selflessly dedicated their lives towards bettering humanity, and through their actions there is no doubt in my mind that that level of morality exists.
Personally I like to view these Stages of Morality as "potentials" for morality, decreasing in potential the farther displaced one's most natural morality is. Say, for example, one acts with a morality of Stage 4 for the majority of the time, considered his "base" or "natural" morality. He is less likely to react to a situation with a Stage 2 morality than a Stage 3 simply because he can better relate to the Stage 3 reasoning processes (much closer to his natural state of morality) than a Stage 2's. This is of course assuming he does not react to said situation with his base morality. Additionally, one might take the "high road" and reason on a slightly higher level of morality than normal for a certain situation, and once again revert back to his base morality (sometimes during the same situation).
Despite my reasoning (or written lack thereof) of Chaos' scenario, I would not agree that my moral stance is on a level of 6. Like you said, there's a big difference between saying what you would do and what you would actually do. This is not to say I'm not capable of viewing a situation and subsequently acting accordingly like a Stage 6, but the frequency of acting on said stage depends on whatever morality level you're on normally. There have been times in my life that I've reacted (albeit briefly) to a situation with a Stage 6 morality, and those always stand out from the rest.
Oh, and sorry for switching the topic off of racism. :-X
Quote from: Ciro on March 07, 2010, 09:24:51 PM
I have a question that relates to the topic, but not the original question... O_o
I hate it when people are rude.
I hate it when people are both purposely rude, and unintentionally rude.
I hate rude people.
When someone is being disrespectful, and completely ignoring the fact that they're a neuscense, I hate that.
So, when a white person does it I hate it, and when a black person does it, I hate it, o-o
But does it make me a racist if I find that more black people tend to be rude?
The way racism is viewed in this day and age is so skewed. That's the issue.
As someone before me said, it comes down to stereotypes, and most are true.
A large portion of black people in USA are still very poor, because of their roots in slavery no doubt. Since they came from nothing they've never really gotten ahead. Because of their financial situation they usually grow up in bad neighborhoods "The hood". Since they grow up in these bad neighborhoods the pick up bad habits. So long story short, because of the way a lot of them are raised, they ultimately end up exactly like their stereotype.
This works for any race. We have stereotypes for a reason. They don't come from nothing and they aren't made it. This isn't to say that everyone of that particular race is that way, but for a vast majority it is true.
So is stereotyping racist? no.
Quote from: Seifer on March 08, 2010, 05:03:37 AMSo is stereotyping racist? no.
It is a little bit if you act based on the assumption that anyone you deal with of a certain race matches up with the given stereotype. It's one thing to generally view stereotypes as being based on truth, it's another to use those stereotypes in your dealings with people of given ethnicities. You have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt regardless of previously conceived notions.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 08, 2010, 01:09:41 AM
Despite my reasoning (or written lack thereof) of Chaos' scenario, I would not agree that my moral stance is on a level of 6. Like you said, there's a big difference between saying what you would do and what you would actually do. This is not to say I'm not capable of viewing a situation and subsequently acting accordingly like a Stage 6, but the frequency of acting on said stage depends on whatever morality level you're on normally. There have been times in my life that I've reacted (albeit briefly) to a situation with a Stage 6 morality, and those always stand out from the rest.
Yea, I feel the same way. I think that intellectually my morality is at a certain level, but my actions probably do not correspond to that same level. I may act according to a stage 6 morality on occasion, but things like fear of retribution and/or indifference towards others will often cause me to act at a lesser stage.
Specifically in the example given, I honestly see myself acting in a completely different manner than what I have stated. I would probably think initially that I would do anything to save my wife, but when confronted with the option of commiting a crime and potentially spending a significant amount of time in prison I would certainly have doubts.
I'm not sure I like the concept of the "stages". Does this mean I'm a failure if I don't think in terms of stage 5 or 6? Or that my moral thinking patterns are sub optimal?
Quote from: Seifer on March 08, 2010, 05:03:37 AM
Quote from: Ciro on March 07, 2010, 09:24:51 PM
I have a question that relates to the topic, but not the original question... O_o
I hate it when people are rude.
I hate it when people are both purposely rude, and unintentionally rude.
I hate rude people.
When someone is being disrespectful, and completely ignoring the fact that they're a neuscense, I hate that.
So, when a white person does it I hate it, and when a black person does it, I hate it, o-o
But does it make me a racist if I find that more black people tend to be rude?
The way racism is viewed in this day and age is so skewed. That's the issue.
As Rayu before me said, it comes down to stereotypes, and most are true.
A large portion of black people in USA are still very poor, because of their roots in slavery no doubt. Since they came from nothing they've never really gotten ahead. Because of their financial situation they usually grow up in bad neighborhoods "The hood". Since they grow up in these bad neighborhoods the pick up bad habits. So long story short, because of the way a lot of them are raised, they ultimately end up exactly like their stereotype.
This works for any race. We have stereotypes for a reason. They don't come from nothing and they aren't made it. This isn't to say that everyone of that particular race is that way, but for a vast majority it is true.
So is stereotyping racist? no.
Wow... O_o you know... I don't believe I've looked at it this way before. Wow... great point. Huh... now it sorta makes more sense. XDD I feel like you opened my eyes
I personally think that morals are subjective. Right in our culture is wrong in another one, and there is still massive deviation within cultures. Having grown up and Universal Health Care (Canadian Culture bias), I believe that Health is a basic right. However, being a middle-upper class suburban kid (more cultural bias), I can see the benefits of a health care as a capitalistic venture, as it encourages competition, both in price and quality. However, in this case, the competitive nature of health care has not made it more affordable, and the question did not say anything about the quality of the medicine, my Canadian cultural bias is going to overcome my middle-upper class suburban cultural bias, and I will say the man did the right thing.
Quote from: Ciro on March 08, 2010, 10:04:52 PM
Quote from: Seifer on March 08, 2010, 05:03:37 AM
Quote from: Ciro on March 07, 2010, 09:24:51 PM
I have a question that relates to the topic, but not the original question... O_o
I hate it when people are rude.
I hate it when people are both purposely rude, and unintentionally rude.
I hate rude people.
When someone is being disrespectful, and completely ignoring the fact that they're a neuscense, I hate that.
So, when a white person does it I hate it, and when a black person does it, I hate it, o-o
But does it make me a racist if I find that more black people tend to be rude?
The way racism is viewed in this day and age is so skewed. That's the issue.
As Rayu before me said, it comes down to stereotypes, and most are true.
A large portion of black people in USA are still very poor, because of their roots in slavery no doubt. Since they came from nothing they've never really gotten ahead. Because of their financial situation they usually grow up in bad neighborhoods "The hood". Since they grow up in these bad neighborhoods the pick up bad habits. So long story short, because of the way a lot of them are raised, they ultimately end up exactly like their stereotype.
This works for any race. We have stereotypes for a reason. They don't come from nothing and they aren't made it. This isn't to say that everyone of that particular race is that way, but for a vast majority it is true.
So is stereotyping racist? no.
Wow... O_o you know... I don't believe I've looked at it this way before. Wow... great point. Huh... now it sorta makes more sense. XDD I feel like you opened my eyes
I agree with Lingus. I give everyone a fair chance at first. I don't assume every black person is a gangster (my project manager, great guy, about the whitest black guy I think I know), I don't assume every mexican who can't speak english is an illegal immigrant, I don't assume every native american runs an economy robbing casino, I wait for them to prove those things to me before I assume them. Now what does bother me, and will cause me to stereotype quicker than ever is to have someone purposely put themselves into that stereotype because he enjoys being part of the "cool crowd" that exploits their own attitude and status to piss off others. For instance, back in my home town, there is a very low black population. Not quite sure why, but we only had 2 in my graduating class. I thought one of the guys was great, got along with him real well. Well one summer he went away to his Dad's house down an hour and a half south, and lived in "the slums" over the summer. He came back all "Gangsta" and "Down with the white man!" As soon as he called me racist, I damn near punched his head off his shoulders. He goes away for three months, and thinks everyone who isn't in his minority is tough shit, and out to screw him, so he waves his racist flag every chance he gets, solely to get attention. That is the kind of crap that will get me to treat you in a racist fashion, because that's what you want.
Quote from: Scotty on March 08, 2010, 10:29:58 PMAs soon as he called me racist, I damn near punched his head off his shoulders. He goes away for three months, and thinks everyone who isn't in his minority is tough shit, and out to screw him, so he waves his racist flag every chance he gets, solely to get attention. That is the kind of crap that will get me to treat you in a racist fashion, because that's what you want.
See, in that case you were basing your judgement of him on his actions. Not the fact that he was black, or even that those actions are typically perceived as stereotypically "black"... it was that he was being an ass to you.