Introduction:

Heinz Dilemma is a famous ethical thought experiment proposed by Lawrence Kohlberg to understand
the moral development of children. This dilemma presents a scenario where a man named Heinz has to
decide whether to steal an expensive drug to save his wife's life or not. This case analysis will explore the
different stages of moral development proposed by Kohlberg and apply them to Heinz's decision-making
process.

Background:
Lawrence Kohlberg was a psychologist who believed that moral development is a gradual process that
occurs in stages throughout a person's life. He proposed six stages of moral development, which are
categorized into three levels - pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each stage
represents a different way of thinking about moral issues and ethical dilemmas.

The Dilemma:
Heinz's wife is dying of cancer, and the only drug that can save her costs $2000, which he cannot afford.
Heinz goes to everyone he knows, but no one can lend him the money. Heinz then breaks into the
drugstore and steals the drug. He is caught by the police and is taken to court. Heinz's dilemma raises the
question of whether it is morally right for him to steal the drug to save his wife's life.
Application of Kohlberg's Stages:
According to Kohlberg's theory, Heinz's decision-making process can be categorized into different stages
of moral development.
Pre-Conventional Level:
At the first stage of moral development, individuals focus on self-interest and obedience to authority.
Heinz's decision to steal the drug can be explained by this stage as he acted out of self-interest to save his
wife's life. He broke the law, but he did it for the greater good.
Conventional Level:
At the second stage of moral development, individuals focus on conforming to societal norms and
expectations. Heinz's decision to steal the drug can be seen as an act of defiance against societal norms.
He did not conform to the law but followed his own moral principles and the desire to save his wife.
Post-Conventional Level:
At the third stage of moral development, individuals focus on their internal moral principles and the
broader ethical implications of their actions. Heinz's decision to steal the drug can be seen as an act of
morality as he put the value of human life above the law. He weighed the consequences of his actions and
acted according to his conscience.
Conclusion:
The Heinz Dilemma highlights the complexity of ethical decision-making and the different factors that
influence individuals' choices. Kohlberg's theory provides a framework to understand the stages of moral
development and how individuals approach ethical dilemmas. Heinz's decision to steal the drug can be
interpreted differently based on the stage of moral development applied. Nevertheless, this dilemma
emphasizes the importance of considering the ethical implications of our actions and the value of human
life.

Introduction:
The Heinz Dilemma is a moral dilemma that was originally proposed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg
as a part of his theory on moral development. The dilemma is centered around a fictional scenario
involving a man named Heinz who faces a difficult ethical decision regarding whether or not to steal a
drug that could potentially save his wife's life. This case analysis will explore the ethical considerations
and potential solutions to the Heinz Dilemma from different ethical perspectives.

Background:
Heinz's wife is suffering from a rare and deadly form of cancer. The only known cure for her condition is
a drug that has been developed by a local pharmacist, but the pharmacist is charging an exorbitant price
for the drug that Heinz cannot afford, even after exhausting all his resources. Heinz pleads with the
pharmacist to lower the price or allow him to pay in installments, but the pharmacist refuses. Heinz is left
with the difficult decision of whether or not to steal the drug to save his wife's life.
Ethical Considerations:
The Heinz Dilemma raises several ethical considerations, including:
Justice and fairness: From a justice and fairness perspective, Heinz may argue that it is unfair for the
pharmacist to charge an exorbitant price for a life-saving drug, especially when the person in need cannot
afford it. He may argue that it is unjust for his wife to suffer and potentially die due to financial
constraints. On the other hand, the pharmacist may argue that they have the right to set the price for their
product based on the costs of research and development, and that it would be unfair for Heinz to steal the
drug without paying for it.

Duty and obligation: From a duty and obligation perspective, Heinz may feel a moral duty to save his
wife's life, regardless of the legality or cost of the drug. He may argue that his obligation as a husband and
a human being is to do whatever it takes to protect the life of his loved one. However, the pharmacist may
argue that Heinz has a duty to respect the law and the property rights of others, and that stealing the drug
would be a violation of that duty.
Consequentialism: From a consequentialist perspective, Heinz may argue that the consequences of
stealing the drug, namely saving his wife's life, outweigh the potential consequences of breaking the law.
He may argue that the value of a human life is paramount and justifies any means necessary to save it. On
the other hand, the pharmacist may argue that the consequences of stealing the drug could have negative
repercussions, such as encouraging theft and undermining the value of property rights.
Virtue ethics: From a virtue ethics perspective, Heinz may argue that the virtue of compassion and love
for his wife outweighs any other considerations. He may argue that a virtuous person would take
whatever action is necessary to save the life of a loved one, even if it involves breaking the law. However,
the pharmacist may argue that a virtuous person would respect the property rights of others and find
alternative means to acquire the drug, such as seeking help from others or negotiating with the
pharmacist.

Title: An Ethical Case Analysis of Heinz Dilemma

Introduction:
Ethics is a fundamental aspect of human decision-making and behavior. It involves navigating complex
moral dilemmas and making choices that align with one's values and principles. One classic ethical
dilemma that has been widely debated is the Heinz Dilemma, proposed by psychologist Lawrence
Kohlberg. The Heinz Dilemma presents a scenario where a man named Heinz faces a moral conflict,
raising questions about the nature of right and wrong, and the factors that influence ethical decision-
making. This essay will analyze the Heinz Dilemma, exploring the ethical considerations and various
perspectives that can be applied to this moral conundrum.

The Heinz Dilemma:

The Heinz Dilemma is a hypothetical scenario that goes as follows: Heinz's wife is terminally ill and
needs a life-saving drug that is priced exorbitantly by the pharmaceutical company. Heinz cannot afford
the drug, and despite his best efforts to borrow money and negotiate with the company, he is unable to
obtain it. Heinz is faced with the ethical dilemma of whether to steal the drug to save his wife's life or
follow the law and let her die.

Ethical Considerations:
The Heinz Dilemma presents several ethical considerations that can be analyzed from different
perspectives. One of the primary ethical concerns is the value of human life. Heinz's love for his wife and
the desire to save her life can be seen as a compelling moral imperative to steal the drug. From a
utilitarian perspective, the greatest good for the greatest number of people would be achieved by Heinz
saving his wife's life, even if it means breaking the law. Additionally, the principle of beneficence, which
emphasizes the obligation to do good and prevent harm, could also be invoked to justify Heinz's decision
to steal the drug.

On the other hand, the ethical consideration of respect for property rights and the rule of law also comes
into play. Stealing is generally considered unethical as it violates the rights of others and undermines
social order. From a deontological perspective, adhering to the principle of respecting property rights and
obeying the law would be the morally correct course of action. Furthermore, the ethical principle of
justice, which promotes fairness and equality, could argue that Heinz should not receive special treatment
or exemption from the law just because he is in a difficult situation.

Perspectives on Heinz Dilemma:

Various ethical theories and perspectives can be applied to the Heinz Dilemma, leading to different
conclusions. Let's explore some of these perspectives:

Consequentialism: From a consequentialist perspective, the morality of Heinz's action would be

determined by the consequences or outcomes. If stealing the drug leads to saving his wife's life and
overall produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people, it could be justified. However, if the
consequences of stealing the drug result in negative repercussions, such as harming the pharmaceutical
company or setting a precedent for others to steal, it may not be justifiable.

Virtue Ethics: From a virtue ethics perspective, the focus would be on Heinz's character and the virtues he
displays. If Heinz demonstrates virtues such as courage, compassion, and love for his wife, his action of
stealing the drug may be seen as morally praiseworthy. However, if Heinz acts out of selfishness or greed,
his action may be deemed unethical, regardless of the outcome.

Duty Ethics: From a duty ethics perspective, the emphasis would be on Heinz's obligation to follow the
law and respect property rights. Heinz may argue that he has a duty to protect the life of his wife, but
others may argue that he also has a duty to respect the law and not steal. This