Stop to Think #7

The videos and primary texts are accompanied with a short description and often a question to guide your focus. Thinking of each of them is essential for understanding certain class material. In this assignment, you will respond to one of them by writing a concise, thorough paragraph (around 150 words).

Read below Lawrence Kohlberg’s version of Heinz’s Dilemma. Think of two sides of the issue: the husband’s act was justified, and the husband’s act was not justified. Choose one of them as your position, provide your main reason, and explain that reason.

In Europe, a woman was near death from a very bad disease, a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist [pharmacist] in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together only about $1,000, which was half of what it cost. 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, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money of it.” Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.

Stop to Think #7 Answer

In the context of Heinz’s dilemma, his act of stealing the drug is not justified under the circumstances. He should not steal the drug because it is a disobedience to the law, and stealing it can result to punishment by the law. In the utilitarian perspective, Heinz’s action is not ethically permissible because the consequences of his actions would not result in the benefit of the many because it is a legal violation.