Question

Regarding Kohlberg’s theory, when evaluating moral dilemmas, the reasoning processes people use are more important than the answers that people give. Provide examples of preconventional, conventional, and postconventional levels of reasoning in response to the Heinz dilemma (see below).

Heinz Dilemma

In the Heinz dilemma, people are presented with a prompt:

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that 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 $2,000, ten times more than what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together half of the money. 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.

Then they are asked: Should Heinz steal the drug? Why or why not?

Answer 1

In the Heinz dilemma, the given are some of the examples that the child is most likely to response

Preconventional: Generally, the child will not agree to the stealing and say that it is bad or that it is against the law.

Conventional: Generally children in this stage will agree with the stealing and said that he did it to save his wife's life. Here they will argue that human life is more important than property breaking.

Post-conventional: Generally children in this stage will also agree with the stealing to save the life of the wife. They would preferably argue that it is the husband duty to save the life of the wife. The truth that her wife's life was in danger can transcend any standards that can be used to judge his actions.