HEINZ’S DILEMMA

The famous example used by Kohlberg was called “Heinz’s dilemma”.   A woman living in Europe would die of cancer unless she was given an expensive drug. Her husband, Heinz, could not afford it. But the local pharmacist, who had invented the drug at only one tenth of the sale price refused to sell it to Heinz who could only raise half the required money from borrowings. Desperation drives Heinz to break into the pharmacy and steal the drug to save his wife.

When respondents were asked whether and why Heinz should or should not steal a drug to save his wife from a life-threatening illness. The responses of the individuals were compared with a prototypical response of individuals at particular stages of moral reasoning. Kohlberg noted that irrespective of the level of the individual the response could be same, but the reasoning could be different.

For example, if a child reasoning at a ‘preconventional’ level might say that it is not right to steal because it is against law and someone might see you.

At a ‘conventional’ level, an individual might argue that it is not right to steal because it is against law and laws are necessary for society to function.

At a ‘post conventional’ level, one may argue that stealing is wrong because is against law and it is immoral.