![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by LegWarmers on March 21, 2006, at 20:46:27
A woman was near death from 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 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 produce. 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 only get together about $ 1,000 which is 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 from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife
What do you think Heinz should have done? And why? Do you think Heinz should be punished?
Posted by Phillipa on March 21, 2006, at 21:00:35
In reply to Moral dilemma, posted by LegWarmers on March 21, 2006, at 20:46:27
Legwarmers is this a story or what? But I don't think he is guilty. The only thing that would worry me was whether the med was legitamate and if he knew a doctor to administer the med as radium is poisonous. Love Phillipa
Posted by sleepygirl on March 21, 2006, at 21:07:21
In reply to Moral dilemma, posted by LegWarmers on March 21, 2006, at 20:46:27
No I don't think Heinz is wrong, interesting name "Heinz"- makes me think of ketchup
I think this is a toughie...
is the druggist wrong for being such a money fiend?...yes, morally, legally, noIs Heinz wrong, no, morally, legally, yes
No, I don't think he should be punished...the heck with the law
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:26:31
In reply to Moral dilemma, posted by LegWarmers on March 21, 2006, at 20:46:27
> What do you think Heinz should have done?
I think it is morally acceptable for him to have broken into the store to steal the drug. I don't know that he *should* have done it (I don't know that he would be acting wrongly for not having done so...) But I think it is morally acceptable for him to have done so. Just like... I think it is morally acceptable for people to steal food if they are starving...
> And why?
Because although we have a duty to not take what does not belong to us...
We also have a duty to look after people who are dependent on us. I'm thinking his wife was too sick to steal it herself...
In this case I think it is better to steal (which is typically wrong) than it is to do nothing which results in the death of his wife.
He attempted to obtain the drug legally... He exhausted his available options (yes I am assuming that)... And the harm to the shopkeeper is less than the harm to his wife. And so... His action was justified.> Do you think Heinz should be punished?
I think he is guilty of theft, yup. But punishment... Hrm. Maybe community service? I think that when we break the law then we need to accept that we have broken the law and there are consequences for having done so. If I break a law (tresspass for instance) in order to protest logging (and I have exhausted my available alternatives before tying myself to a tree) then... I am morally justified. But I still have to face the legal consequence of being proclaimed guilty of breaking the law. And getting a fine or something.
Some countries have laws that are a little too harsh (IMO). Like... Cutting someones hand off if they steal. In some cases people steal to survive. I think it is a little harsh (okay more than a little) to cut off their hand...
It is a hard one :-)
Intellectual copyright.
Compare your answer with what you think about drug companies keeping HIV treatment under intellectual copyright which has the consequence that many people in third world countries don't get treatment...
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:29:35
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma » LegWarmers, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:26:31
Though if he really does have a duty to his wife then maybe he does have a duty to steal the drug. Given that the harm to his wife is greater than the harm to the shopkeeper he probably does have a duty to steal the drug (so I ammend my previous answer)
If I remember the case rightly... The drug cost $1,000 to make... I think he should have left the $1,000 on the bench as he left.
That way the only thing he is hurting (re the shopkeeper) is his sense of entitlement...
(and tresspass on his property...)
(and maybe it took him some time and effort (which should be compensated))
i'm tempted to say the shopkeeper should be punished...
But i'm not sure whether that is coming from anger or moral reasoning ;-)
Posted by Phillipa on March 21, 2006, at 21:32:07
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma » LegWarmers, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:26:31
I agree with everything you've said but radium is a very dangerous drug chemical whatever. If it is a type chemo masks, gowns, proper disposal is necesrry. She should be in a hospital with trained personel to administer and dispose of the med. Love Phillipa
Posted by Emily Elizabeth on March 21, 2006, at 22:36:37
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma » special_k, posted by Phillipa on March 21, 2006, at 21:32:07
Don't worry, it's all hypothetical. This is a famous moral dilemma used in a number of key psychological studies. I guess they didn't plan for the reader to have actual knowledge of chemicals!! :)
Best,
EE
Posted by Phillipa on March 21, 2006, at 22:46:19
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma » Phillipa, posted by Emily Elizabeth on March 21, 2006, at 22:36:37
EE thanks pretty funny . Love Phillipa
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 22:46:23
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma » Phillipa, posted by Emily Elizabeth on March 21, 2006, at 22:36:37
> ... used in a number of key psychological studies.
Is it?
What do they think it shows?
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 22:48:47
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:29:35
or maybe anger (can) alert one to injustices :-O
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 22:49:19
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 22:48:47
ahem *perceived* injustices
(in the sense that perceptions can be in error re veridicality)
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 22:52:28
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 22:49:19
is the experiment...
designed to see whether people from different age groups... have moved beyond concrete operational into taking context into account?
Posted by LegWarmers on March 22, 2006, at 6:42:51
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma » LegWarmers, posted by sleepygirl on March 21, 2006, at 21:07:21
> No I don't think Heinz is wrong, interesting name "Heinz"- makes me think of ketchup
>
> I think this is a toughie...
> is the druggist wrong for being such a money fiend?...yes, morally, legally, no
>
> Is Heinz wrong, no, morally, legally, yes
>
> No, I don't think he should be punished...the heck with the lawI don't think he should be punished either, I think the druggest is a big d*ck.
Posted by LegWarmers on March 22, 2006, at 6:46:08
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma » LegWarmers, posted by Phillipa on March 21, 2006, at 21:00:35
> Legwarmers is this a story or what? But I don't think he is guilty. The only thing that would worry me was whether the med was legitamate and if he knew a doctor to administer the med as radium is poisonous. Love Phillipa
Its a study, this is a sample story they would give subjects to assess that stage of moral development according to Kohlberg's stages, in particular, that someone is in... its based on their reasoning as to 'why' it is wrong.. *no subjects got hurt in the study : )*
Posted by LegWarmers on March 22, 2006, at 6:49:18
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:29:35
> Though if he really does have a duty to his wife then maybe he does have a duty to steal the drug. Given that the harm to his wife is greater than the harm to the shopkeeper he probably does have a duty to steal the drug (so I ammend my previous answer)
>
> If I remember the case rightly... The drug cost $1,000 to make... I think he should have left the $1,000 on the bench as he left.
>
> That way the only thing he is hurting (re the shopkeeper) is his sense of entitlement...
>
> (and tresspass on his property...)
>
> (and maybe it took him some time and effort (which should be compensated))
>
> i'm tempted to say the shopkeeper should be punished...
> But i'm not sure whether that is coming from anger or moral reasoning ;-)The idea is.. that at the highest stage of morality, stage 6. A person makes the call that life has more value than the druggest's drugs. We have a duty to prevent death .....
I think the druggest should be punished too! Its just evil IMO
Its too early for me atm, so I hope I worded this right
Posted by LegWarmers on March 22, 2006, at 6:50:07
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma » Phillipa, posted by Emily Elizabeth on March 21, 2006, at 22:36:37
> Don't worry, it's all hypothetical. This is a famous moral dilemma used in a number of key psychological studies. I guess they didn't plan for the reader to have actual knowledge of chemicals!! :)
>
> Best,
> EEthanks! correct me if Im wrong in explaining : )
Posted by LegWarmers on March 22, 2006, at 6:51:20
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 22:46:23
> > ... used in a number of key psychological studies.
>
> Is it?
>
> What do they think it shows?What stage of development people are in, from 1 - 6
Ill try to find it and post them.
Posted by LegWarmers on March 22, 2006, at 6:52:12
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma » special_k, posted by LegWarmers on March 22, 2006, at 6:51:20
Posted by LegWarmers on March 22, 2006, at 6:56:25
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 22:52:28
> is the experiment...
>
> designed to see whether people from different age groups... have moved beyond concrete operational into taking context into account?In a way...
"Kohlberg's theory holds that moral reasoning, which he thought to be the basis for ethical behavior, has developmental stages. He followed the development of moral judgment beyond the ages originally studied by Jean Piaget, expanding considerably on Piaget's work. He determined that the process of moral development continued throughout the lifespan, and created a model based on six identifiable stages of moral development."
StagesKohlberg's six stages were grouped into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Following Piaget's requirements for a stage model, it is not possible to regress backwards in stages. It is also not possible to 'jump' stages; each stage provides new perspective and is "more comprehensive, differentiated, and integrated than its predecessors."
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
2. Self-interest orientation
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(a.k.a. The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(a.k.a. Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(a.k.a. Principled conscience)
[edit]
Pre-Conventional
The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development, and are purely concerned with the self (egocentric).
In stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished. In addition, there is no recognition that others' points of view are any different from one's own view.
Stage two espouses the what's in it for me position, right behavior being defined by what is in one's own best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." In stage two concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect. Lacking a perspective of society in the pre-conventional level, this should not be confused with social contract (stage 5) as all actions are performed to serve one's own needs or interests.Conventional
The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Persons who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing these actions to societal views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development.
In Stage three, the self enters society by filling social roles. Individuals are receptive of approval or disapproval from other people as it reflects society's accordance with the perceived role. They try to be a good boy or good girl to live up to these expectations, having learned that there is inherent value in doing so. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude and the 'golden rule'. Desire to maintain rules and authority exists only to further support these stereotypical social roles.
In Stage four, it is important to obey laws and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for approval exhibited in stage three, because the individual believes that society must transcend individual needs. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would - thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules.Post-Conventional
The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, consists of stages five and six of moral development. Realization that individuals are separate entities from society now becomes salient. One's own perspective should be viewed before the society's is considered. (It is due to this 'nature of self before others' that the post-conventional level, especially stage six, is sometimes mistaken for pre-conventional behaviors.)
In Stage five, individuals are viewed as holding different opinions and values, all of which should be respected and honored as impartiality is paramount. However issues that are not regarded as relative like life and choice should never be withheld. Along a similar vein, laws are regarded as social contracts rather than dictums, and those that do not promote general social welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.
In Stage six, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Decisions are met categorically in an absolute way rather than hypothetically in a conditional way. In addition, laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who consistently used it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:42:51
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma » special_k, posted by LegWarmers on March 22, 2006, at 6:56:25
Ah. This is semi-familiar... Before... I don't know if I meant to say 'moving beyond concrete operational' or 'moving beyond formal operational'... I think there was another stage but I can't quite remember...
I'm not so convinced those stages really occur... And I'm not so convinced they really are distinct (conceptually)... And I'm not so sure that people don't regress at times (when they are sick, when they have a great personal involvement etc).
> In Stage six, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.
Though some ethicists consider that there aren't universal ethical principles. Also... Most ethicists consider that even if there are universal ethical principles, we don't know what they are / how to formulate them yet. Hence... If Kohlberg is right that we need to use the universal ethical principles in moral reasoning and we can't use a principle we don't know... Then nobody would be able to engage in moral reasoning (perhaps though I can see a way out for him perhaps).
> Decisions are met categorically in an absolute way rather than hypothetically in a conditional way.
Utilitarians think moral imperitives (what you 'should' do) is hypothetical / conditional:
IF act x leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number... THEN act x is the morally right thing to do (the IF THEN makes the statement conditional. If the part between the IF and the THEN turns out to be false then there is no reason to think the part between the THEN and the end of the sentence is that act that one should do). Kantian ethics is categorical. Acts of injustice are wrong. Period. Doesn't matter if an injust act leads to the greatest happiness... Injust acts are wrong categorically. Sounds like Kohlberg is trying to be Kantian here...> In addition, laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws.
Ah. So justice is the thing for Kohlberg. I wonder how he cashes out justice (Just acts are good acts period! And how he defines that... In virtue of what are just acts good acts?) Is whether an act a just act supposed to be universal? What do all just acts have in common?
> While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who consistently used it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.
Tee hee.
That is because Kohlberg seems to think that stage 6 is the correct moral theory... I'm guessing stage 6 would be his moral theory... Tee hee.
I would say that ethicists should be taken as paradigmatic cases of sophisticated moral reasoners.
There is much disagreement.
In fact... My officemate (former) was trying to defend a sophisticated egocentric ethics...
Posted by Emily Elizabeth on March 22, 2006, at 23:01:22
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:42:51
Here is a neat website for those of you REALLY interested in this topic: http://www.vtaide.com/png/Kohlberg.htm
Also, for a different POV, you might consider the work of Carol Gilligan, a feminist theorist who proposed that women view the world through relationships rather than through justice/injustice.
Special K, I think that you mentioned that you are suspicious of stage theories. I think that most modern psychologists would agree with you. Stages are too simple for the complexity of human development. Empirical research also seems to support that we cannot break things like this in to neat stages.
Best,
EE
Posted by AuntieMel on March 23, 2006, at 9:35:07
In reply to Moral dilemma, posted by LegWarmers on March 21, 2006, at 20:46:27
I think he should have picketed the store. Walk up and down with a sign that says "My wife will die because of this store's greed."
Get the guy where it really hurts - in the wallet.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 20:43:29
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:42:51
> Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." In stage two concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect. Lacking a perspective of society in the pre-conventional level, this should not be confused with social contract (stage 5) as all actions are performed to serve one's own needs or interests.
If one should do that which conforms to the social contract because that is what is most likely to further your own interests... Then the distinction between stage 2 and 5 would collapse.
Officemate (former) thought that...
You can get a good moral theory out of egoism (as opposed to altruism) and if you buy into something along the lines of 'what goes around comes around' then you can see how they might amount to the same thing.
Interesting to consider...
Posted by special_k on March 26, 2006, at 17:13:49
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 20:43:29
sorry to go on but i just remembered this and wanted to share it...
when i was at school... i was taking a class on 'classical studies'. our teacher for that was a hard bitch basically. very no nonsense. very uptight. and very stern with a tendancy toward being a bit mean (IMO).
we were studying "The Last Days of Socrates" (which was my first exposure to philosophy.
we were reading it as a class. we would go around the room and we had to read a paragraph each out loud. she would talk about the important bits as we went etc. we hated it rather.
the first part was a conversation between socrates and this guy he met on the steps of the courthouse. the point was to show the reader something of socrates process of questioning (and how people felt upset because he exposed their ignorance).
the second part was about his trial. trumped up charges of corrupting the young etc. basically... they were just pissed off with him for exposing their ignorance.
the third part was... jeepers i can't remember now.. maybe his defence? or maybe that was part of the last bit...
the last part was him meeting his friends.
see... he could have pleaded for them to let him off (the typical defence). he would probably have got off that way. he just had to... move to another city. and / or... to stop with the questioning. but he didnt' do that. he showed how the charges were trumped up and pathetic really... and so he was sentanced to drink hemlock (death sentance basically).
he could have escaped.
but he didn't.
he drank the hemlock.
and so now he is something of a matyr. about how the search for the truth is really important... and people might hate you for it... but it is better to do that than just fall into line and be popular...
anyways... when he drank the hemlock our teacher was reading. and she was trying to hold back tears.
we took note.
we did.we were stunned.
i guess that might be where the idea comes from that even if morally you are doing the right thing... you are still subject to the laws of your country (and need to be prepared to face the consequences).
socrates gives many arguments for this.
of course... we werent' engaging in a very sophisticated analysis of the issues... and i haven't done much (or any really) ancient philosophy since second year (and we studied different texts). but... maybe that is where the philosophical notion comes from.
not sure that i agree... but that is where it comes from (i think) anyways...
Posted by special_k on March 26, 2006, at 17:23:29
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma, posted by special_k on March 26, 2006, at 17:13:49
this is from a review
his friend is trying to convince him to escape jail
> He launches three arugements. 1. We should never injury others on any circumstances. Escape from jail and breaks the laws is certainly an act that would put the Laws of Athens on the blink of destruction. 2. You should respect your country's command as if you respect your parents. Since a person's birth, his country provides the protections, regulates the supply of food and enriches him with education. Thus, a person shouls respect his country like or more than he respects his parents. 3. There is a contract between the government and the people. If a person does not like the Laws of a country, he can choose to leave it. If he chooses to stay, that means he signs the contract with government of not ! breaking the laws. If he does not break the laws, the government can't do anything on him. If he does, the government reserves the rights to punish him or even execute him.
apart from being not very well written i think those are the arguments socrates uses... though probably interesting to find them in the original (they don't seem so compelling to me here)
i guess socrates didn't make it to stage 6...
socrates seems to be rather kantian / absolutest... (though even kant recognised duties could conflict)
i wonder what socrates would have said about the moral dilemma...i take back what i said about ethicists being sophisticated moral reasoners... or maybe not. i guess i have just been contemplating the point that some ethicists are indeed sophisticated moral reasoners in the sense that they engage in very sophisticated moral arguments to justify whatever it is they want to do...
maybe look to those people who seem to exemplify morality / the good life in deed?
like socrates i was going to say... like socrates...
but maybe theorietical morality...
and practical morality...are two different things...
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.