Assignment 2

By Nagesh Agrawal 19bdi022

In Europe, 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 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 and tried every
legal means, 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 if." So, having tried every legal means,
Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's
store to steal the drug for his wife.

Question 1: Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the

drug? Why or why not?

Answer:
Heinz wife is near to death and being her husband, he has an
obligation to save her life at any cost but at the same time he
also knew breaking into the man’s store to steal the only drug
that may save his wife live would result in lawful punishment
which he really wants to avoid. But by reviewing his situation, He
has an obligation to steal the needful drug as he has no other
way to save his loved one even though there is no guarantee that
drug is going his wife life or not.
Note: Kohlberg’s Stage 5 ‘social contract’ corresponds to
level 3 where doing what is right even if it is against the law
becomes morality.

Question 2: If Heinz doesn't love his wife, should he steal the

drug for her? Does it make a difference in what Heinz should do
whether he loves his wife or not? Why or why not?
Answer:
If he doesn’t love his wife and still lives with her then probably, he
stays for fulfilling his duties or just spending his life. Assuming
that there is no third person in their life. This would be a chance
to get away from his wife. But the responsibility of being her
husband won't let this happen because if small stealing of a drug
may save her life, then there is no better option besides this as
he is not evil enough to kill someone, he is very closed to.
Helping her life would also him help too in some other difficult
day.
It will not make a major difference in what Heinz should do
whether he loves his wife or not because of the reason they are
still together.
Note: Kohlberg’s theory - Stage 5 ‘social contact’
corresponds to level 3 where doing what is right even if it is
against the law. Stage 2 ‘hedonistic orientation’ corresponds
to level 1 doing what is right for personal gain.

Question 3: Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a

stranger. Should Heinz steal the drug for the stranger? Why or
why not?
Answer:
Being a good person and fulfilling all the social duties is good for
the environment but doing something unlawful for a stranger
may ruin his image among society. Generally, we help strangers
while staying within boundaries and sometimes we also push
ourselves beyond the boundaries while keeping legal laws in
mind. Stealing the drug for the stranger while risking his own life
after trying to borrow money from everyone he knew and trying
every legal means isn’t enough to save her life. Taking a risk for a
person would also reward him in some other ways. Also, stealing
the drug is not making any harm to someone apart from the
druggist who earns 1000 dollars less from the drug.
Note: Kohlberg’s theory - Stage 3 ‘interpersonal
concordance orientation’ corresponds to level 2 where doing
what is right according to the majority to be good person.
Stage 2 ‘hedonistic orientation’ corresponds to level 1 where
doing what is right for personal gain.

Question 4: It is against the law for Heinz to steal. Does that

make it morally wrong? Why or why not?
Answer:
It is against the law for Heinz to steal the drug because according
to Kohlberg's moral theories, the post-conventional stage of
morality was not reached by the majority of people. So, if Heinz
is not one of the few notable individuals, it will be morally wrong
for him to steal since the law is his ultimate authority and cannot
be disobeyed under any circumstances. Under this stage, the
only things he could do is borrow the money and try every legal
means and asked the druggist to sell it cheaper or let him pay
later. What makes his stealing morally right is when he reached
the post-conventional morality stage.

Question 5: In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you

say is the most responsible thing for Heinz to do? Why?
Answer:
The most responsible thing for Heinz to do was to try all means
to arrange for the money by leasing his property, residence,
jewellery and everything to legally get the required money, even
he can try to convince the druggist for any other mode of
transaction like exchange of goods (barter system) or do EMI
under legal bond. Stealing the drug should be the last option
when one has tried all means as it is ethical for someone to
monopolise his discovery and deserve to be rewarded for their
achievements. Although stealing is itself an unlawful act but if
the result of doing so is good and doesn’t harm someone then
the person who has done stealing should not feel guilt for that.
Note: Kohlberg’s theory - Kohlberg’s Stage 5 ‘social contract’
corresponds to level 3 where doing what is right even if it is
against. Stage 6 ‘ethical principal orientation’ corresponds to
level 3 where doing what is right because of our inner conscious,
laws and beliefs.