I've seen number of other videos on Kohlberg's model, but find this one as the best. Very clearly explained with one example changing in different contexts. Many Thanks
What it boils down to is whether or not you value money over human life. The money is a commodity that can be replenished while his wife is not. It depends on what value you place on human life. As someone with a machiavellian outlook, I feel as though the ends do justify the means. Somewhat unrelated, but I think it's interesting how this example is essentially a microcosm of the modern-day pharmaceutical industry. Ps: great video dude!
There are many adults who remain lifelong in the level 1 of the first stage because they follow rules simply because they don't want to be punished or they think themselves morally correct as long as they are not caught red handed.
Thank you, this was a great breakdown. I'm a nursing student, and Kohlberg, Erikson and Piaget are constantly used in mental health and pediatrics. I will think of your examples during test questions. Wouldn't Captain America be an example of post-conventional thinking? Everyone always says he has the best moral compass and will do the right thing, I could be wrong though.
Thank you Daniel for this explanation. I need to apply this theory for an assignment for university. It really helped me understand this theory. In return I offer you an answer to your question. The man was right to steal the drug. While theft is wrong, a human live (and the right to that live) outweighs the (right to) greed of another human. I would have stolen that drug in a heartbeat even to help a stranger. By charging 10 times the cost and refusing to even let someone pay in installments (Heinz was offering to pay the full amount, but just not all of it once) makes the pharmacist immoral in my eyes. So having it stolen from him is karma and a proper punishment for his greed and willingness to let others suffer. He was offered 5 times the cost of his work. That was already more than a fair reward for inventing the drug.
To me, I think that the laws in this scenario should be such that the doctor who discovered the drug cannot inflate the price. Because there are laws against stealing, I do not think what the man did was necessarily correct, but I do think his motivations were good.
For some reason i kept gaslighting myself n my opinion, questioning why is it so uncommon, bruh my reasoning is almost identical to level 6. Thank yo for this video, it is very very informative.
My thoughts at the beginning: It was seriously hard for me to answer. Should he have stole it? Probably not, however, I understand why "he" did. It is wrong of the scientist to charge so much when he has the power of life/death. The scientist could have based it on ability to pay or offered a payment plan. If he did that I am sure that he would have more people supporting him. I am leaving a comment and sending this video to my professor on my assignment because you have helped me complete my paper. Thank you, I have watched a ton of videos to get a better explanation and I did not "get it" with the others.
An interesting question for Heinz to consider would be, "Would I go to jail, or accept punishment in order to same my wife's life?". Since his wife's time is finite, he could still steal the drug, save his wife's life, then accept the responsibility for his theft.
Yes! When thinking about this dilemma, I Initially hesitated to fully commit to saving his wife due to social contract reasons. I considered this thought as well. By accepting punishment for his crime of theft, he can still abide by the ethics of the social contract, keeping it in tact at the cost of personal punishment. This helped me fully commit to the concept of a human life, the wifes happiness(just living) holding greater weight than the druggist's suffering (only financial).
What stage is someone who wants to burn things down to start over because it's not good enough? A lot of people seem to think this way. I would think it's a version of stage 4 but that they would think it's stage 6 because they perceive themselves as thinking beyond rules and society. Maybe sometimes it's stage 2 when the thinking is more selfish ("law not good enough for me")?
I say no. Although the woman's survival depended on the drug, it's not enough justification for her husband, Heinz, to go and steal the drug. One should not do evil so that good could come out of it. What if after she was administered the drug she still died? How about the druggist who laboured to discover the remedy? It would be unfair to him. What Heinz could have done is to persevere and be importunate in his request to the druggist to reduce the cost or to pay him later.
@@VirJost we dont know how much labor the druggist out into making the drug. If it takes him a month to make a single dose and he needs $2000 to survive for that month then he has set a fair price... We dont know whether the druggist is struggling or not. He could have it worse off than the man and his wife.
I don't give a rats bottom. I'm going in and taking them even. What if it was for a child? What if it did save her life....what if they saved many? Now IF the creator of the drug was actually put in a bad financial situation himself due to this theft, then I'd come up with ways to make it right after the fact. You can still pay him afterwards. Even if it takes working additional hours. Heck...who knows. Maybe even the wife may get well enough to repay him for what they've used or be helpful in someway (cleaning his home regularly for him, providing food she gardens, preparing meals, etc.). You can always come up with a solution to repay him after the fact.
This was a wonderful video, I really did appreciate your explanation. I'm currently studying school psychology and I've developed into somebody who thinks that, after not knowing what the Heinz Dilemma was, it really does depend on the person's morals Many thanks for the video, Happy Holidays sir
In observing myself and others I have noted that these stages appear as and when the situation dictates. I cannot think of anyone I know who does not fluctuate between them. The way Kohlberg's opinions are presented here sort of suggests that as one climbs the pyramid of moral awareness we attain some kind of saint like rightness. Is that what Kholberg was in fact suggesting or have I misunderstood something?
Steal the drug. Ethics of care. You can leave a thousand dollars, and save up another thousand to pay it back. Stealing is bad, but not saving your wife is badder. Less bad is gooder.
Shouldn't Kholbergs question have been 'would you have done it?' or something similar. The way the stages are presented are as if they were happening to that person, however the Heinz dilemma is more third person.
I would say yes, IF that is the only was to save a life. First I would go to the back to get a loan, I would attempt to work out a payment plan with the seller, I would create a GO Fund Me page. Stealing the drug would only be if and when there is no other option.
In my opinion, I would take what my wife needed. Because I owe it to her as her husband. Breaking and entering is a crime against the scientist. Not doing everything in my grasp to make sure she lives, is a crime against her and the future me.
My answer for The Heinz dilemma (not having seen the rest of the video yet)... It was wrong for him to break in and steal the drug, however, had it been a member of my family, I would have done the same. I would gladly risk the punishment for theft, if it meant the possibility of saving a loved one from death.
@1:55 Oh! Forgot to answer! I paused, thought of it but decided to share later. I gotta say I feel it was wrong to steal, but as someone with a husband that has CHF, I can relate I think though he may know it was wrong to steal, saving his wife is important if he can. I just feel conflicted. Am I at 4 or 6 for simply realizing "It's wrong but oh well..."?
Wahey, I made it to level 6. I am guided by religious thinking. I actually have a very hard time debating with level 2 and 3 people. They don't like me at all.
I have reached level SIX, but my answer is not that he "should" steal the drug (possibly), due to it causing more lives to be lost in the future, due to less drug production, due to loss of the profit motive.... It would depend on additional information!!! Is this against the model??
I think he did the right thing because, in the first place he tried to get the money required but the was incongruence between the time it would take for him to raise the whole amount and the time it would take for his wife to die and he had to make sure he did whatever it takes to save his wife..it could be out of love, or any strong or stronger feeling. Feeling and law don't go like that but still I'd do the same or worse if I were Hienz 😅
I'd say yes he should have because human life is more valuable than money. Even further I'd say the guy selling the drug should not be charging those unreasonably high amounts for something that is used to save lives. I can't stand when people see anything as more important than human life edit: 6 is rare? I thought that was how most people weighed things and made choices. I guess that does explain why it can be so hard to agree on certain things
Only 20% of adults reach stage 3 and most of those are level 5. I teach ethics at a university and I've been polling students for years. I've found, like Kohlberg, that the vast majority of adults are at level 3 or 4. Believe-it-or-not, you (and others at level 6) are unfortunately a small minority.
To answer the question on Heinz Dilemma: I think my experience throughout the pandemic has shaped my answer to it. I internally blame the druggist for the end result, had he got some sympathy or consideration, Heinz would not have broken into the shop and did what he did. Heinz was in regular behavior but the druggist is in some unnatural state of moral development that should be studied. Also, Thank you for the nice explanation of the topic.
From this video. I'm somewhere at like a 5.5. As an ethical egoist, I believe that he is within his moral rights to charge whatever he wants.. he's a dick, but, it's his discovery, and he should be allowed to make that decision. (It's not illegal to be an asshole). However. From the husband's perspective, I believe that life is more important than money. And we have an inherent drive to live, and, in this case, he was also morally in the right, for the aforementioned: life is more important than money. And I do believe in universal ethics. Nobody should murder someone else. However, egoism supercedes that, because there are circumstances wherein I believe murder can be justified (same with theft, and other crimes - for which I stand on a case-by-case basis when judging.. basically every action a person does).
"very few people make it to level 6" Is it so? Is there any data about it? (cause I don't think a lot of people so immature? not the right term I guess... whatever)
Kohlberg estimated that about 10-15% reach the final stages. (See Kohlberg's Essays On Moral Development.) You can also explore "The moral development of the child: an integrated model" for more recent data confirming this.
I'm a student and I'm still trying to understand this kind of stuff. I say yes. What Heinz did was wrong but he did it in order to save his dying wife. If either he was overcome with strong emotions at the time and couldn't think straight and did not care about the druggist, or...he already knew of the consequences and readies himself and proceeds to do it anyways. Yhe druggist overpriced the drug he made, disregarding the ones who need it most, especially to a dying person. It is seen as immoral or bad to raise the price of the drug for monetary benefit in times of need. Though, the druggist's services should be paid for what they're worth, they were too greedy then so Heinz ends up breaking into his store. Heinz will end up in jail because he committed to breaking and entering and theft. It is against the law to steal. In the future news reports Heinz will be locked in prison. Some people watching the news might think that what Heinz did was for the greater good while people's views on the druggist will become negative and would say "it's because he overpriced the drug". This is very controversial. I'm sorry for any wrong grammar and punctuation.
Heinz should first work out all the other options he has, complaining to the authority, groupfunding and charitable sources etc... After trying everything if they ain't another option then Yes, Heinz should steal. Stealing is wrong is an objective morality. Stealing is right because he's left with no other option to save his wife is subjective morality. So in this context, Stealing is right and wrong. As his wife is dying he should steal the drug, By stealing he has broken the law which is wrong. So he should take the punishment for that,
Should the husband have done that? In my opinion No, there is no assurance the drug will even work for his wife. Plus there may be other Drugs that have better results or work according to his wife's specific needs. Stealing a drug that may or may not work is very risky and impulsive I would say. To further think about the behavior of the husband I would assume he is under such duress that his behavior is a result of the stress and emotional drain as well as anxiety. His stealing is actually a small cog in a much bigger issue he has not been able to address. Yes, I paused the video at 1:57 and answered the question because I wanted to actually do the exercise to get valid results. 😉 Now I can't wait to see where I land which I guess I'll come back and edit my post to update 😁 Edit: Wow I totally over thought and over shot that exercise 🤣. Now I'm trying to figure out where my answer fits of the scale of 1-6 🤔. I certainly agreed with 5 and realized that 6 was a much better approach so I guess I'm at a 5 thinking about other situations where people stole 🤔. Anyone wanna take a crack at my responses and see where it fits? If it even fits at all in the 6 laws 🙄 I gotta stop thinking so deeply about things 🤣😂🤣
yes, he was right about stilling this drug because no one wants to lose their loved ones whereas there is plan B, and he has half of the charged price or he was going to pay later, I truly believe that god helps those who help themselves.
I say no ....becoz he can choose anyother way ...although his situation was very bad that's y he did this thing but we cannot justified this matter ...
I believe the husband did the druggist q favor by sterling the drug because once someone had died you can't go back and say"damn I should have gave you this medication". At different points in life we do things that we would change. The druggist will never have to wonder "what if" he would have saved that person's life. My morale perspective is based on a some semblance of equivalent exchange. A 200 or 2000 object against a person's life I would rather steals that ítem and eventually replace it. Now if the drug was meant for the druggist daughter who was sick and and the guys wife was dying to then we can talk because that's a life for a life
to me the dilemma is to know whether the pharmacist refusing to give the drug to save a human's life is guilty of murder ......That is how crazy the Heins dilemma seems to me Tanguy Cornec, of course you break and steal to save any human's life .
I would say, he should've taken the drug. Sure, the druggist was in his own legal rights to do as he pleased with the drug he created, but in a life or death situation, saving a life is worth more than making money. If your only reasoning for not saving someone's life is because you don't stand to make anything from it then in my belief you didn't deserve to make the money to begin with. A life is always worth saving.. no matter who it is.
NO, because you run the risk of getting her half of what she needs to get better and you don't know how much it will help her or not. try and see if he can get additional discounts and use the barter system to maybe pay later the balance.
Unfortunately the example doesn’t give enough context to show whether he could lobby publicly for the drug or get more support for him to acquire it cheaper or for free by more legal means before she died. When it comes down to it though, the law - and especially greed - should never prevent someone from saving a life.
Argument for intent....intent of each individuals actions...the doctor is not HELPING people...he's not a doctor...their are other legal avenues on can presume at that time of discovery....however due to the stress the man was under...breaking the window or whatever may have been the best idea due to exhaustion for anyone to relise...basically it's a conversation starter....legally or morally...it's dead in the water at the start...if a friend came to you with that problem you would say..."who's your doctor?"...and start from there
I say 'yes';because, we don't know what stage of terminal illness she was in, or how long she had to procure help before expiring. I say 'no' in light of the notion that he could get caught, arrested, and the authorities could still confiscate the drug, ergo leaving him at square one with no drug, no livable means ( were the druggist to sue), and no freedom. Were he to proceed with stealing, he'd need to plan carefully. Obviously, the chemist seems to have low morals to seek profit in the wake of suffering; thus, either appealing to his sense of greed or blackmailing him might be better ploys. Someone that self-interested is bound to have skeletons in the closet and would go to great lengths to ensure his individual safety and reputation.
This isn't about a right to life vs. stealing. The man who discovered the therapy deserves recognition for is discovery and appropriate compensation for it. If the price of cancer therapy was the same price of a street-corner hot dog, who would be motivated to put any effort into innovation and high skill in any area of expertise? Besides that, the guy's gotta put food on the table for his own family. Maybe he's not going about selling or distributing his product in the best way, but you can't say it's morally justified for someone to just steal that product and have them get off scott free. Maybe the desperate man is willing to go to jail to save his wife but there's gotta be law and order in the world to keep discoveries like the very one the druggist made continually worth discovering.
I've seen number of other videos on Kohlberg's model, but find this one as the best. Very clearly explained with one example changing in different contexts. Many Thanks
been having a hard time looking for a well-explained Kohlberg's moral stages of development, thank you for this one,!!!
I agree! Something hadn't quite clicked before. It definitely has now, makes loads more sense!
Same!!
Even me
What it boils down to is whether or not you value money over human life.
The money is a commodity that can be replenished while his wife is not.
It depends on what value you place on human life. As someone with a machiavellian outlook, I feel as though the ends do justify the means.
Somewhat unrelated, but I think it's interesting how this example is essentially a microcosm of the modern-day pharmaceutical industry.
Ps: great video dude!
I really loved how you broke it down in layman's, non-philosophical terms... And you have a great voice as well.
Best explanation of Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Thank you
There are many adults who remain lifelong in the level 1 of the first stage because they follow rules simply because they don't want to be punished or they think themselves morally correct as long as they are not caught red handed.
@@madj8515 👏👏you realised ...you must be a very efficient Teacher.
How about level 2?????
Thank you, this was a great breakdown. I'm a nursing student, and Kohlberg, Erikson and Piaget are constantly used in mental health and pediatrics. I will think of your examples during test questions. Wouldn't Captain America be an example of post-conventional thinking? Everyone always says he has the best moral compass and will do the right thing, I could be wrong though.
Thank you so much. I have an exam tomorrow and am feeling so grateful for this video.
This was a great presentation because you utilized real world examples to bring clarity to the theory.
Thank you so much. I very much appreciate giving examples of behaviour in each stage.
I am definitely level 6. Never understood why people needed laws to designate how to behave. Of course, some laws are unprincipled.
Me 2
Thank you Daniel for this explanation. I need to apply this theory for an assignment for university. It really helped me understand this theory. In return I offer you an answer to your question. The man was right to steal the drug. While theft is wrong, a human live (and the right to that live) outweighs the (right to) greed of another human. I would have stolen that drug in a heartbeat even to help a stranger. By charging 10 times the cost and refusing to even let someone pay in installments (Heinz was offering to pay the full amount, but just not all of it once) makes the pharmacist immoral in my eyes. So having it stolen from him is karma and a proper punishment for his greed and willingness to let others suffer. He was offered 5 times the cost of his work. That was already more than a fair reward for inventing the drug.
Got a final today, used your video to recap. Gotta say, you have a soothing and memorable voice! Hope I can come across more!
I learned something new about myself. Thank you so much for this video
To me, I think that the laws in this scenario should be such that the doctor who discovered the drug cannot inflate the price. Because there are laws against stealing, I do not think what the man did was necessarily correct, but I do think his motivations were good.
Splendifourous!
Thank you muchly! Nicely broken down.
By far, the best explanation. Thank you
I'm so thankful!
Such a well explained video. The Heinz Dilemma is a very interesting experiment to determing the stage of moral development.
Very well explained. You helped me understand Kohlberg's theory when I'd been having issues understanding it in class all week. Much appreciated.
Satisfied with this explaination. Thank you so much, appreciated.♥️
Thank you for this video. It's been of great help
Wow.. Just amazing... Really helped me understand. Thank you very very much for posting this sir.. Really appreciate it....
Happy to help!
For some reason i kept gaslighting myself n my opinion, questioning why is it so uncommon, bruh my reasoning is almost identical to level 6. Thank yo for this video, it is very very informative.
Thankyou for the explanation with best examples
Yes, the man acted in good moral conscience. A higher moral code is the mitigating source and rationale.
My thoughts at the beginning: It was seriously hard for me to answer. Should he have stole it? Probably not, however, I understand why "he" did. It is wrong of the scientist to charge so much when he has the power of life/death. The scientist could have based it on ability to pay or offered a payment plan. If he did that I am sure that he would have more people supporting him.
I am leaving a comment and sending this video to my professor on my assignment because you have helped me complete my paper. Thank you, I have watched a ton of videos to get a better explanation and I did not "get it" with the others.
This was really well explained! Thank you 🙏🏽
Thank you sir. This is useful for my report
An interesting question for Heinz to consider would be, "Would I go to jail, or accept punishment in order to same my wife's life?". Since his wife's time is finite, he could still steal the drug, save his wife's life, then accept the responsibility for his theft.
Yes! When thinking about this dilemma, I Initially hesitated to fully commit to saving his wife due to social contract reasons. I considered this thought as well. By accepting punishment for his crime of theft, he can still abide by the ethics of the social contract, keeping it in tact at the cost of personal punishment. This helped me fully commit to the concept of a human life, the wifes happiness(just living) holding greater weight than the druggist's suffering (only financial).
What stage is someone who wants to burn things down to start over because it's not good enough? A lot of people seem to think this way. I would think it's a version of stage 4 but that they would think it's stage 6 because they perceive themselves as thinking beyond rules and society. Maybe sometimes it's stage 2 when the thinking is more selfish ("law not good enough for me")?
What a great explanation. Thankyou!
Thank you. This was so easy to understand verses what we did in class. Again, thank you.
I say no. Although the woman's survival depended on the drug, it's not enough justification for her husband, Heinz, to go and steal the drug. One should not do evil so that good could come out of it. What if after she was administered the drug she still died? How about the druggist who laboured to discover the remedy? It would be unfair to him. What Heinz could have done is to persevere and be importunate in his request to the druggist to reduce the cost or to pay him later.
In the Dilemma he does ask for those two things and the offers are rejected
@@VirJost we dont know how much labor the druggist out into making the drug. If it takes him a month to make a single dose and he needs $2000 to survive for that month then he has set a fair price...
We dont know whether the druggist is struggling or not. He could have it worse off than the man and his wife.
I don't give a rats bottom. I'm going in and taking them even. What if it was for a child? What if it did save her life....what if they saved many?
Now IF the creator of the drug was actually put in a bad financial situation himself due to this theft, then I'd come up with ways to make it right after the fact. You can still pay him afterwards. Even if it takes working additional hours. Heck...who knows. Maybe even the wife may get well enough to repay him for what they've used or be helpful in someway (cleaning his home regularly for him, providing food she gardens, preparing meals, etc.).
You can always come up with a solution to repay him after the fact.
Very well explained. Thank you
This was a wonderful video, I really did appreciate your explanation. I'm currently studying school psychology and I've developed into somebody who thinks that, after not knowing what the Heinz Dilemma was, it really does depend on the person's morals
Many thanks for the video, Happy Holidays sir
In observing myself and others I have noted that these stages appear as and when the situation dictates. I cannot think of anyone I know who does not fluctuate between them. The way Kohlberg's opinions are presented here sort of suggests that as one climbs the pyramid of moral awareness we attain some kind of saint like rightness. Is that what Kholberg was in fact suggesting or have I misunderstood something?
This is well explained. Thank you
Nice presentation... Greetings from India...
It was Such a clean explanation. Thank you so much
Steal the drug. Ethics of care. You can leave a thousand dollars, and save up another thousand to pay it back. Stealing is bad, but not saving your wife is badder. Less bad is gooder.
Great English
Thank you; awesome explanation!
Beautiful beautiful beautiful explained
Shouldn't Kholbergs question have been 'would you have done it?' or something similar. The way the stages are presented are as if they were happening to that person, however the Heinz dilemma is more third person.
Wow oh my god this is such a brilliant explanation video
Very well said.
I know it wouldn't be right to steal, but either way I would. You could always pay back, and you might save a person's life
Thank you for the video.
Finally i was able to understand it, thank you❤
I would say yes, IF that is the only was to save a life. First I would go to the back to get a loan, I would attempt to work out a payment plan with the seller, I would create a GO Fund Me page. Stealing the drug would only be if and when there is no other option.
Thank you for posting this. Super imformative!!
Great explanation. Love it!
In my opinion, I would take what my wife needed. Because I owe it to her as her husband. Breaking and entering is a crime against the scientist. Not doing everything in my grasp to make sure she lives, is a crime against her and the future me.
What about wanting to gain freedom is it under stage 2 or 6?I'm confuse.. Pls.. help me
My answer for The Heinz dilemma (not having seen the rest of the video yet)... It was wrong for him to break in and steal the drug, however, had it been a member of my family, I would have done the same. I would gladly risk the punishment for theft, if it meant the possibility of saving a loved one from death.
Me personally , I think 2 and 6 are really similar
@1:55 Oh! Forgot to answer!
I paused, thought of it but decided to share later. I gotta say I feel it was wrong to steal, but as someone with a husband that has CHF, I can relate
I think though he may know it was wrong to steal, saving his wife is important if he can.
I just feel conflicted. Am I at 4 or 6 for simply realizing "It's wrong but oh well..."?
Wahey, I made it to level 6. I am guided by religious thinking. I actually have a very hard time debating with level 2 and 3 people. They don't like me at all.
Thank you for this
My pleasure!
I have reached level SIX, but my answer is not that he "should" steal the drug (possibly), due to it causing more lives to be lost in the future, due to less drug production, due to loss of the profit motive.... It would depend on additional information!!! Is this against the model??
Tbh, you sound more like Level 5.
well explaned👏
Sir can you upload one video on Erickson Psycho social theory of development
THE BEST ONE
The best👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
Level 6. Periodt!
🤷🏾♀️💃🏾🤦🏾♀️🙏🏾💜🦋🌈🌍🙏🏾🙏🏾
Ps - Although, man.. it is going to suck when he goes to jail! 🙏🏾🌞
thank you so much
Nice video. I terminated the one using cartoons to explain when I saw this.
thank you so muchhhhh
what if im not in the levels
Sir please give an example of last substage
I think he did the right thing because, in the first place he tried to get the money required but the was incongruence between the time it would take for him to raise the whole amount and the time it would take for his wife to die and he had to make sure he did whatever it takes to save his wife..it could be out of love, or any strong or stronger feeling. Feeling and law don't go like that but still I'd do the same or worse if I were Hienz 😅
wow thankyou this is a brilliant idea
Wow just wow🎉
Thanks
I'd say yes he should have because human life is more valuable than money. Even further I'd say the guy selling the drug should not be charging those unreasonably high amounts for something that is used to save lives. I can't stand when people see anything as more important than human life
edit: 6 is rare? I thought that was how most people weighed things and made choices. I guess that does explain why it can be so hard to agree on certain things
CONGRATS YOU ACHEIVED LEVEL 6
Only 20% of adults reach stage 3 and most of those are level 5. I teach ethics at a university and I've been polling students for years. I've found, like Kohlberg, that the vast majority of adults are at level 3 or 4. Believe-it-or-not, you (and others at level 6) are unfortunately a small minority.
To answer the question on Heinz Dilemma: I think my experience throughout the pandemic has shaped my answer to it. I internally blame the druggist for the end result, had he got some sympathy or consideration, Heinz would not have broken into the shop and did what he did. Heinz was in regular behavior but the druggist is in some unnatural state of moral development that should be studied.
Also, Thank you for the nice explanation of the topic.
From this video.
I'm somewhere at like a 5.5.
As an ethical egoist, I believe that he is within his moral rights to charge whatever he wants.. he's a dick, but, it's his discovery, and he should be allowed to make that decision. (It's not illegal to be an asshole).
However. From the husband's perspective, I believe that life is more important than money. And we have an inherent drive to live, and, in this case, he was also morally in the right, for the aforementioned: life is more important than money.
And I do believe in universal ethics. Nobody should murder someone else. However, egoism supercedes that, because there are circumstances wherein I believe murder can be justified (same with theft, and other crimes - for which I stand on a case-by-case basis when judging.. basically every action a person does).
"very few people make it to level 6" Is it so? Is there any data about it? (cause I don't think a lot of people so immature? not the right term I guess... whatever)
Kohlberg estimated that about 10-15% reach the final stages. (See Kohlberg's Essays On Moral Development.) You can also explore "The moral development of the child: an integrated model" for more recent data confirming this.
I'm a student and I'm still trying to understand this kind of stuff.
I say yes. What Heinz did was wrong but he did it in order to save his dying wife. If either he was overcome with strong emotions at the time and couldn't think straight and did not care about the druggist, or...he already knew of the consequences and readies himself and proceeds to do it anyways. Yhe druggist overpriced the drug he made, disregarding the ones who need it most, especially to a dying person. It is seen as immoral or bad to raise the price of the drug for monetary benefit in times of need. Though, the druggist's services should be paid for what they're worth, they were too greedy then so Heinz ends up breaking into his store. Heinz will end up in jail because he committed to breaking and entering and theft. It is against the law to steal. In the future news reports Heinz will be locked in prison. Some people watching the news might think that what Heinz did was for the greater good while people's views on the druggist will become negative and would say "it's because he overpriced the drug". This is very controversial.
I'm sorry for any wrong grammar and punctuation.
The dilemma for me was to decide whether the man refusing to sell the drug was or not a murderer and i think he is
Life is more important than money or than the right of patent
What about the destroying incentives to produce more drugs' to save future lives by stealing the drug?
Thank you sir for explaining this theory and it's stages in very simple way
Heinz should first work out all the other options he has, complaining to the authority, groupfunding and charitable sources etc... After trying everything if they ain't another option then Yes, Heinz should steal. Stealing is wrong is an objective morality. Stealing is right because he's left with no other option to save his wife is subjective morality. So in this context, Stealing is right and wrong. As his wife is dying he should steal the drug, By stealing he has broken the law which is wrong. So he should take the punishment for that,
Should the husband have done that? In my opinion No, there is no assurance the drug will even work for his wife. Plus there may be other Drugs that have better results or work according to his wife's specific needs. Stealing a drug that may or may not work is very risky and impulsive I would say. To further think about the behavior of the husband I would assume he is under such duress that his behavior is a result of the stress and emotional drain as well as anxiety. His stealing is actually a small cog in a much bigger issue he has not been able to address. Yes, I paused the video at 1:57 and answered the question because I wanted to actually do the exercise to get valid results. 😉 Now I can't wait to see where I land which I guess I'll come back and edit my post to update 😁
Edit: Wow I totally over thought and over shot that exercise 🤣. Now I'm trying to figure out where my answer fits of the scale of 1-6 🤔. I certainly agreed with 5 and realized that 6 was a much better approach so I guess I'm at a 5 thinking about other situations where people stole 🤔. Anyone wanna take a crack at my responses and see where it fits? If it even fits at all in the 6 laws 🙄 I gotta stop thinking so deeply about things 🤣😂🤣
yes, he was right about stilling this drug because no one wants to lose their loved ones whereas there is plan B, and he has half of the charged price or he was going to pay later, I truly believe that god helps those who help themselves.
I say no ....becoz he can choose anyother way ...although his situation was very bad that's y he did this thing but we cannot justified this matter ...
Yes
Stage 1 level 2😀
I believe the husband did the druggist q favor by sterling the drug because once someone had died you can't go back and say"damn I should have gave you this medication". At different points in life we do things that we would change. The druggist will never have to wonder "what if" he would have saved that person's life. My morale perspective is based on a some semblance of equivalent exchange. A 200 or 2000 object against a person's life I would rather steals that ítem and eventually replace it. Now if the drug was meant for the druggist daughter who was sick and and the guys wife was dying to then we can talk because that's a life for a life
to me the dilemma is to know whether the pharmacist refusing to give the drug to save a human's life is guilty of murder ......That is how crazy the Heins dilemma seems to me Tanguy Cornec, of course you break and steal to save any human's life .
I would say, he should've taken the drug.
Sure, the druggist was in his own legal rights to do as he pleased with the drug he created, but in a life or death situation, saving a life is worth more than making money. If your only reasoning for not saving someone's life is because you don't stand to make anything from it then in my belief you didn't deserve to make the money to begin with.
A life is always worth saving.. no matter who it is.
NO, because you run the risk of getting her half of what she needs to get better and you don't know how much it will help her or not. try and see if he can get additional discounts and use the barter system to maybe pay later the balance.
Unfortunately the example doesn’t give enough context to show whether he could lobby publicly for the drug or get more support for him to acquire it cheaper or for free by more legal means before she died. When it comes down to it though, the law - and especially greed - should never prevent someone from saving a life.
Yes
As the life of his wife was slipping away. The seller could lend with 1000 Dollars as late payment.
seriously I didn't think I will be one in a few
Argument for intent....intent of each individuals actions...the doctor is not HELPING people...he's not a doctor...their are other legal avenues on can presume at that time of discovery....however due to the stress the man was under...breaking the window or whatever may have been the best idea due to exhaustion for anyone to relise...basically it's a conversation starter....legally or morally...it's dead in the water at the start...if a friend came to you with that problem you would say..."who's your doctor?"...and start from there
i thought yes cause the seller was not giving an EMI .......so wth am i
I say 'yes';because, we don't know what stage of terminal illness she was in, or how long she had to procure help before expiring. I say 'no' in light of the notion that he could get caught, arrested, and the authorities could still confiscate the drug, ergo leaving him at square one with no drug, no livable means ( were the druggist to sue), and no freedom.
Were he to proceed with stealing, he'd need to plan carefully. Obviously, the chemist seems to have low morals to seek profit in the wake of suffering; thus, either appealing to his sense of greed or blackmailing him might be better ploys. Someone that self-interested is bound to have skeletons in the closet and would go to great lengths to ensure his individual safety and reputation.
This isn't about a right to life vs.
stealing. The man who discovered the therapy deserves recognition for is discovery and appropriate compensation for it. If the price of cancer therapy was the same price of a street-corner hot dog, who would be motivated to put any effort into innovation and high skill in any area of expertise?
Besides that, the guy's gotta put food on the table for his own family. Maybe he's not going about selling or distributing his product in the best way, but you can't say it's morally justified for someone to just steal that product and have them get off scott free.
Maybe the desperate man is willing to go to jail to save his wife but there's gotta be law and order in the world to keep discoveries like the very one the druggist made continually worth discovering.