I’m currently re-taking a General Psychology class for admission to a Masters program (credits must be obtained within the last 8 years for consideration) and one of my assignments is to conduct a series of interviews regarding the Heinz Dilemma and determine the subject’s level of moral development according to Kohlberg’s Moral Reasoning theory. I’m not sure if an online forum will produce authentic responses (given that people have the opportunity to research Kohlberg’s stages and/or feed off of others’ responses) but given the nature and levels of discussion that occur here, I thought it might make for an interesting exercise.
For those who want to play, here’s the deal: read each scenario, then answer the questions below as simply and honestly as possible. That’s all there is to it. Everyone who participates gets an A+
Heinz’s Dilemma
Scenario 1 A woman was near death from a unique kind of cancer. There is a drug that might save her. The drug costs $4,000 per dosage. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000. He asked the doctor scientist who discovered the drug for a discount or let him pay later. But the doctor scientist refused.
Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? Scenario 2 Heinz broke into the laboratory and stole the drug. The next day, the newspapers reported the break-in and theft. Brown, a police officer and a friend of Heinz remembered seeing Heinz last evening, behaving suspiciously near the laboratory. Later that night, he saw Heinz running away from the laboratory.
Should Brown report what he saw? Why or why not? Scenario 3 Officer Brown reported what he saw. Heinz was arrested and brought to court. If convicted, he faces up to two years’ jail. Heinz was found guilty.
Should the judge sentence Heinz to prison? Why or why not?
No, stealing is wrong. He should drag his wife onto Oprah instead and get the money and/or drug that way, it’s the American way.
Yes, he’s a policeman, it’s his duty. He’s not condemning his friend, his friend’s actions are doing that. He should then write a book about the whole thing, it’s the American way.
No, he’s not a hardcore criminal like Paris Hilton and there is nothing society will gain from his imprisonment. The judge should weep in front of cameras and try to get a tv judge gig out of the whole thing, it’s the American way.
1 - No. He should try something else that is legal. There are lots of ways to make money that are legal. Sell your plasma (it’s for a good cause!). Sell some stuff on ebay. Sell some sperm. Get a part-time job. Get a loan. Get a credit card that will give you a cash advance. I can’t believe that he exhausted every legal means and NOTHING panned out. Even if he did, breaking into the lab is not the answer.
2 - Yes. He is a policeman. It’s his job to report information about a crime or a possible suspect. And just because he reports what he saw doesn’t necessarily mean a negative outcome for his friend. He is relaying information.
3 - It depends. If there is a law stating that someone who steals something valued at $x must serve jail time, then Heinz should go to jail. However, since Heinz is dealing with a family emergency (his wife’s illness) and seems to be the only capable provider right now, putting him in jail does not seem like the best solution. It seems like it would punish the rest of his family who needs him. He does not seem to be a violent criminal who is a threat to society. Also, fining Heinz does not seem to be a good solution either since a lack of money is the cause of the crime in the first place. I think community service time would be a just punishment for his crime.
Scenario 1
Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
Heinz should steal the medicine but leave $2,000 and a signed note if doing so will still give him time to administer the medicine to his wife. Otherwise he should confess when his wife is saved from death.
Why?
It is “right” to save an innocent life by stealing. It is “wrong” to steal…
Scenario 2
Should Brown report what he saw? Why or why not?
Yes. But he should first give Heinz time to administer the drug, then report the crime and confess that the report was intentionally delayed.
Why?
It is “right” to save an innocent life by breaking the rules. It is “wrong” to delay the report if the officer is required to immediately report crime.
Scenario 3
Should the judge sentence Heinz to prison? Why or why not?
No. Rather the judge should sentence Heinz to make complete restitution to the inventor of the drug.
Why?
Judges make judgements. The sentence should acknowledge both the “right” and “wrong” of the act.
Scenario 1 Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
Assuming there are only two scenarios (to steal the drug, or to let his wife die), he should steal. Reason being, at this level (family level), it’s more of an emotional situation then logical (right/wrong) situation. My answer would be different, if he had to kill someone to get the drug.
Scenario 2 Should Brown report what he saw? Why or why not?
Yes he should report, because it’s his duty/job responsibility.
Scenario 3 Should the judge sentence Heinz to prison? Why or why not? Yes, the judge should sentence him, as letting him go will open the door for other such crimes and it will be hard to draw a line between which of those situations are in fact a need driven crime vs crimes presented as need driven.
#1: Yes. Your wife is certainly more important than the moral superiority of not stealing. What does the scientist stand to lose? A few thousand dollars and some time and effort involved in developing the drug. What do you/your wife stand to lose? Everything you have built together along with her life. The life is much more important.
#2: Brown should not report what he saw. His obligation to his friend should be much stronger than that to his profession in this scenario. Yes, he does have an obligation to his profession to enforce the law, but in this specific case his obligation to his friend (or loyalty, whatever you wanna call it) should be greater.
#3: Yes, 2 years versus losing your wife is a small price to pay (unless she’s a pain in the ass and has a huge insurance settlement that you stand to receive ). He obviously broke the law, and having no obligations to the individual in this case, the judge needs to enforce the law.
I’ll play, for what it is worth I hit reply without checking the other responses.
I gonna say no. He might not know the correct way to administer the drug (assuming it is not just popping some pills). He probably wouldn’t know the correct dosage and could potentially kill his wife, there could be side effects and or adverse reactions and again kill his wife. Finally if it was just $2000 I am sure he could get a bank loan, although realistically if this was some rare cancer the drug would most likely be more than the cost of a house ($4000 seems cheap for some exotic medicine), maybe this test should be adjusted for inflation.
Should Brown report him yes. Would I if I were Brown? No. Short of murder I would not report a friend. Remember friends help you move, good friends help you move bodies.
I would say no prison. Some sort of probation and fines based on the fact that Heinz is not a violent criminal and is not likely to repeat his crime, unless maybe this cancer has a genetic component and his daughter or son inherit it.
Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
Yes, he should break into the labratory to steal the drug to save his wife. We aren’t pure individuals, we live in a society and we have obligations to each other. The doctor has an obligation, too, that means. Assuming Heinz has availed himself of every legal means of getting the drug, exigent circumstances justify the theft.
Should Brown report what he saw? Why or why not?
Yes, he should report what he saw. His discretion as a police officer doesn’t extend so far as to ignore burglary, and it isn’t his role to decide whether or not Heinz’s theft was justified.
Should the judge sentence Heinz to prison? Why or why not?
It depends on how the law is written. In a perfect world, the law is written in such a manner as to give the judge some leeway, or to allow the exigent circumstances which drove Heinz to be used as a defense. If so, the judge should not sentence him to prison. If not, he should. That would be unfortunate, and would be an issue to take up with the legislature.
Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
No, Heinz should not break into the lab. He should find out where the doctor scientist lives and hold his wife and kids captive (apply the Jack Bauer Standard) until the doctor scientist agrees to allow a payment plan.
Should Brown report what he saw? Why or why not?
Brown should report what he saw and then admit that he helped Heinz hold the scientist hostage (or steal from the lab). There is a higher law at work here, and society can’t hold us down!
Should the judge sentence Heinz to prison? Why or why not?
**
Heinz should not be sentenced to prison, the scientist should.
