Heinz’s dilemma and moral states: and where do you stand?

There are those who point out that we are going through a time in which ethics and morality are at a turning point. Perhaps, the fact of going through a time dominated by so many changes, crises and challenges means that many of our cornerstones are shaking. Because if there is one thing evident, it is that, when things go wrong, we are not always able to unite for a common good.

In an increasingly polarized society, it is very difficult to reach agreements. In an increasingly fast-paced world, it is incredibly difficult to stop to reflect for a moment and decide where we want to go. Now, there are also many who warn us that this is not new, and that humanity has always behaved in the same way in similar circumstances.

The psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987), specialized in moral reasoning, already warned us of an illustrative fact. According to his own studies, Only a small percentage of adults do the right thing because morality and ethics dictate it. The rest, so to speak, do what is appropriate only if they are observed or pressured by third parties. In his privacy, he will do what benefits him most.

This fact is somewhat devastating, because if there is something we would like, it is for all of us to have the basic rules of civility, ethics, justice and moral sense imprinted within us. But apparently, these are dimensions that not all of us develop. To assess whether people reach that peak point of moral development, Kohlberg posed Heinz’s famous moral dilemma.

According to Lawrence Kohlberg, between 4 and 10 years old, the child presents an egocentric point of view and is placed on a preconventional moral level.

Heinz’s dilemma and moral states: and where do you stand?

If there is a question that has always interested psychology and philosophy, it is how people develop a sense of their ethics and morality. Do you always start from educational or family influences? Or does society itself perhaps have a decisive role in understanding what is right and what is wrong? The comprehensive challenge is high.

Jean Piaget was one of the first figures to address moral development. He did it from a cognitive perspective. Later, he took over the baton from a young psychologist with a PhD in philosophy from Harvard University, Lawrence Kohlberg. We could say that he dedicated his entire career to this goal, until, sadly, he took his own life due to the deep depression he suffered.

His legacy, contained in works such as My Personal Search for Universal Morality or Essays on Moral Development (1981), continues to be studied and revised. Kohlberg’s purpose was none other than to create a more just society through education. For this he proposed a didactic approach based on “Socratic” morality.

Dialectics and questioning were, for him, the basic pillars to encourage children to have a more critical, reflective and open vision of life.. To do this, proposals such as Heinz’s dilemma should also be used; small stories that encouraged analysis, questioning and the obligation to position ourselves from an ethical and moral perspective. We analyze it.

Did Mr. Heinz do the right thing?

“Mr. Heinz’s wife is seriously ill: she has a very aggressive cancer. Her life hangs by a thread and there is only one medicine that could save her life.

At a given moment, and in the midst of desperation, Mr. Heinz makes a decision. The drug costs $2,000, so his only option is to borrow the money from his family and acquaintances. He tries, but only gets half, $1,000.

Dejected, he approaches the pharmaceutical laboratory that has designed the medicine that could save his beloved wife. He explains his situation to them and asks them to please, out of humanity, sell it to him cheaper or allow him to pay the missing part later when he manages to raise the money. They refuse.

The pharmacist tells him that they discovered this formula and that now their goal is to get rich with it. So Mr. Heinz leaves without saying anything, but with a clear plan in mind. He will return that same morning and raid the laboratory to steal the drug that can save his wife.”

In your opinion, has the character in this story done well? For what reason? Try to develop the answer well.

In the post-conventional phase there is a broader and more critical vision of ethical and moral principles, in which the right to life is above all.

Responses and assessment to the dilemma

Lawrence Kohlberg believed that The moral development of the human being started from his cognitive evolution and the social experiences he has gone through.. As is evident, children will have slower progress based on their psychobiological development and the situations to which they are exposed. However, what about adults?

Kohlberg believed that just over 15% of the population reaches the last level of moral development, which he defined as the post-conventional stage. While it is true that his theory later aroused various criticisms, what is still interesting is the fact that, according to him, To reach that higher state, we need everything from good abstract reasoning to solid values.

How did you evaluate Heinz’s famous dilemma, then? We analyze it.

Preconventional level

This first phase of moral development is based on two stages: in the first there is blind obedience to the rules and fear of punishment. In the second stage, the child already focuses on satisfying her individual needs. In this case, The answers that fit Heinz’s dilemma in the preconventional phase follow a clearly infantile model:

He should not steal the drug because that act is wrong and he will go to jail for breaking the rules. He should steal the drug because if his wife dies, he will be alone. He should not steal it because jail is an unpleasant place and he will suffer.

Conventional level

This is the level that, according to Kohlberg, most of us are at. At this stage of moral development we accept social rules based on whether they seem ethical, logical and fair to us.

However, and here comes the nuance, In the conventional phase we value the norms based on how we have been educated and what society itself transmits to us. We lack, so to speak, a certain critical and independent vision.

The answers given would be the following:

What was done is understandable and respectable. His wife will be saved, but he will have to go to prison because he has committed a crime. After all, those who break the law must be punished, otherwise this would be the law of the jungle. What is done is understandable, he loves her wife and would do anything for her. It is legal.

The post-conventional level

Reaching this high point of moral development requires a more abstract, critical approach that adheres to one’s own values, without external or cultural conventions. At this point, a person understands that a society must have laws, but believes that these laws should be adjusted to the real needs of people.

This implies that, in many cases, the values ​​that a person defends do not always fit with the justice and moral principles established in the social environment in which they live. Thus, the answers usually given to Heinz’s dilemma are the following:

It makes no sense to prioritize respect for property over respect for life itself. We should all be able to fight to defend a higher, non-egoistic value. We all have the right to defend life beyond those laws that prioritize the right to economic benefit like that of pharmaceutical companies.

To conclude, we cannot deny that Heinz’s dilemma is an interesting exercise to pose to children throughout their lives. Making them think and project themselves into other people’s situations forces them not only to make ethical and moral judgments. It can also encourage them to develop empathy and critical thinking. It is worth keeping it in mind.

You might be interested…