Development across the lifespan

  • Uncategorized


The issue that was facing Heinz needed deep thinking. The situationinvolves a matter of life and death of a loved one. Considering thatHeinz was protecting the life of his wife whom he loved andcherished, it was prudent for him to steal the drug to heal his wife.It is clear that the chemist had discovered the drug and had theright to set the price at an amount that was twice what Heinz couldafford. Heinz had already tried enough to raise the money includinggetting help from friends and family members. The reasoning behind mydecision is that the life of the wife is priceless and cannot becompared with the cost of the intellectual property of the chemistwho discovered the drug. This answer falls on stage five ofKohlberg’s moral stages. This is the stage of social contract andindividual rights. There is need to protect life even if the law isbeing broken.

Stealing the medicine for the purpose of saving the life of the wifewould have been the only moral decision he would have made.Safeguarding the life of an individual is the first priority sincethere is no price that can be placed on life. The Heinz dilemmaexperiment has been criticized for various reasons. Opponents arguethat it is not the best measure of morals since it only used males inthe experiment. Additionally, the male children were not subjected tothe same test later in life to find out whether they would giveanswers that are consistent with the stages. I believe that thesituation he presented involving the possible death of a loved onemade the experience to Heinz so intense that he would not havethought rationally or morally. This makes the dilemma an ineffectivemeasure of one’s morals.

Close Menu