This test helps reveal your level of moral development

This test was developed in the second half of the 20th century by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg. Since then, the moral interview technique has undergone several modifications and has been used for various purposes, from purely scientific and philosophical research to job interviews. In the test, there are no questions about your habits, preferences, attitudes or the way you speak. You just need to imagine the proposed situation and answer the questions honestly. But in any case, we ask you not to take the test results too seriously. We bring it as a curiosity and entertainment, and never for diagnostic purposes.

O awesome.club invites you to look a little deeper than usual. Remember: there are no wrong answers to the questions in this test. The main thing will be: Why yes or no? But you can understand something already in the reasoning process. In this case, the “answers” ​​will be an aid rather than an end result.

The protagonist of this story, Heinz, is desperate: his wife is dying of cancer. According to doctors, only one drug can save him: one based on radium, recently invented by a pharmacist. Good thing the pharmacist lives next door. But unfortunately, due to his greed, he priced the drug 10 times its cost: $2,000 for a dose. Heinz borrowed money from everyone, but he still needs half the amount. He asked the pharmacist to sell him the drug cheaper or to wait for full payment, but the pharmacist remained firm: “I invented the drug and I want to make money from it, so I will not lower the price”. So Heinz decided to break into the pharmacy and steal the drug.

Do you think Heinz should steal the drug? Why is this right or wrong? Is stealing the drug a duty or is it Heinz’s obligation? If Heinz doesn’t love his wife, should he steal the medicine for her anyway? Because? Suppose the dying woman is not his wife, but a strange woman. Do you think Heinz should steal the medicine anyway? Because? Let’s assume it’s a pet he loves. Heinz should break into the drugstore
to save your beloved animal? Is it important that people do everything possible to save someone’s life? Theft is illegal. Is it bad from a moral point of view? In general, should people try to do everything possible to obey the law?

The secret of this test is that it is not the choice itself that is interpreted, but the reasons for the decision. Do you remember the main question? Why yes or no?

It is necessary to keep in mind that each subsequent level includes the previous ones to some extent. In total, there are 3 positions, each with 2 levels of moral development.

Level 1: Obedience and fear of punishment. At this level, Heinz must not rob the pharmacy because he will be arrested. Or yes, because the drug costs $2,000 and the pharmacist is greedy.

This is the level of moral development of a young child who does not yet know how to live in society with its norms. He evaluates the actions and consequences they can have, thinks about the punishment and the value of things in his eyes surpasses the value of life.

Level 2: Service by service. Heinz must save his wife, otherwise he will suffer for her death. The basis of this level is a personal interest, a benefit to oneself and some
benefit to others (if later it can bring more benefit). Moral values ​​do not
have no importance.

If your choice is guided by these considerations, it may be difficult for you to live in society and maintain communication with people. Selfish interests can affect interaction with others, preventing others from understanding.

Level 3: A good boy (a good girl). Heinz wants to be good in his wife’s eyes and therefore will steal (otherwise how could he look her in the eye?). Or he will not steal, because he has done everything possible within the framework of the law, and we have nothing to blame him for.

This is a typical teenager level. An adult at this level can be quite childish and dependent on the opinions of others.

Level 4: Triumph of the Law. Stealing is prohibited, so Heinz shouldn’t do that. Or he will steal the medicine but then turn himself in to the police and pay compensation to the pharmacist. This is an adult level.

If you choose this path, it can be said that you generally respect the law, follow established rules, and prefer stability to spontaneity. For you, the concept of duty and social role plays an important role.

Level 5: Human Rights. Heinz steals the medicine, because everyone has the right to life and is above the law. Or he should not steal the medication: after all, this is the pharmacist’s source of income and property, to which he is also entitled.

This is an advanced level. You are tolerant, respect other people’s principles, and know for sure that your freedom ends where someone else’s freedom begins.

Level 6: Justice and universal ethics. Heinz must steal the medicine, because saving a person’s life is more valuable than the right to property. Or he must not steal: the medicine does not belong to him and is also necessary for other people

You are guided by a sense of justice and you act one way or another because it is the right thing to do, not because you think about other people’s opinions or because you fear punishment. Kohlberg himself observed that there are few people who constantly act at this level.

The protagonist of this dilemma has reached the final stage of an incurable cancer. The Doctor. Jefferson knows she is no more than six months old. The pain is unbearable and a sufficient dose of painkillers would allow her to die. During the calm period, the woman asked the doctor to give her the necessary dose for this.

1. Do you think Dr. Should Jefferson give the medicine so the woman could die? Is this correct or not?

2. Do you believe that the woman has the right to make the final decision?

3. The woman is married. Should your husband influence your decision? What should a good husband do in this situation?

4. Does a person have a duty or obligation to live when he does not want to?

5. When a pet is seriously injured or has an irreversible disease, it is euthanized so as not to suffer. Can the same reason apply in this case?

6. It is illegal for a doctor to give the woman medication. Is it morally wrong?

7. In general, should people do everything possible to obey the law? Because? How does this apply to what Dr. Jefferson should have done?

8. Reflecting on the dilemma, what would you say about the most important thing that Dr. Jefferson would?

9. What does the word “conscience” mean to you? If you were Dr. Jefferson, what would your conscience tell you when making the decision?

Two brothers were in need and needed money. Carl, the eldest, stole a thousand dollars by robbing a store. Bob, the younger brother, asked for help from a former philanthropist in town. He told the man that he was very sick and needed a thousand dollars for an operation. Bob promised to return the money as soon as he recovered. But really, he wasn’t sick. Although the old man didn’t know him well, he gave him the money and the brothers left town, each with a thousand dollars.

1. Which is worse: stealing, like Carl, or cheating, like Bob?

2. What is the worst thing about deceiving an old man? Because?

3. In general, why should the promise be kept?

4. Is it important to keep the promise given to a person you don’t know well or will never see again?

5. Why can’t you steal from stores?

Share in the comments what you think about these dilemmas, how you would solve them and why.