First, for the poll question, read this scenario of a "Burglary in Europe" and answer it:
Assume that Heinz is caught by the police and sent to jail.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. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?[5]
This question was made by Lawrence Kohlberg as part of his theory of the stages of moral development. Whether you answer the question yes or no is actually not important. What is important is how you justify your answer, because each answer is judged on a scale ranging from 1 to 6 by a psychologist listening to you explain it. According to his theory, people always advance in stages and never regress, people typically leave the first two stages by around age 10-13, and most people never make it to the last few stages. (In fact, he has considered removing stage 6 because of lack of consistent 6-level responses.)
The stages are:
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional):
1. Obedience and punishment orientation. This viewpoint has no regard for the fact that other perspectives may exist, and it focuses solely on the punishment for an action. If an action is punished, it is morally wrong. If it is punished more severely, it is even more wrong.
Example: "Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person. Or: Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200 and not how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else."
It focuses either on the fact that he will punished for the crime, or on the fact that Heinz had tried to pay more than the arbitrary "worth" of the medicine.
2. Self-interest orientation. This viewpoint recognizes that other perspectives exist, but sees morality as completely relative to one's own self interest, and it cooperates with others only to further this. It can be confused with Stages 5 and 6, which also put the self before the society (with varying ideas on the self's obligation to society).
Example: "Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would probably languish over a jail cell more than his wife's death."
It focuses on solely on whether Heinz will be happier in prison with a living wife or free with a dead wife.
Level 2 (Conventional):
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity orientation. This viewpoint recognizes that others may have good or bad intentions, and it tries to fit into society much more. Action is mainly driven by desire acceptance from others and fear of disapproval. Most teenagers are at this level, according to the theory.
Example: "Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband. Or: Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he tried to do everything he could without breaking the law, you cannot blame him."
It focuses on what other people will think of Heinz if he steals the medicine, and that he had a good intention.
4. Authority and social order obedience orientation. This viewpoint focuses on the fact that there is a duty to uphold the laws and rules. If they could be violated at will, society would collapse. Individual desires must be considered secondary to the needs of the many. Most adults, according to the theory, are at this level.
Example: "Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal. Or: Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences." Another example: Stannis in A Song of Ice and Fire.
No matter what the answer to the dilemma is in this viewpoint, Heinz must answer to the law.
Level 3 (Post-Conventional):
5. Social contract orientation. This viewpoint puts an even higher emphasis on the fact that individuals have different needs and desires, and it sees laws as social contracts instead of rigid commandments. Depending on the individual's viewpoint, laws may be invalid either when they violate a certain set of "natural rights" or when they do not bring the greatest good for the greatest number of people. But whether rights are inherent or decided by the majority, this viewpoint puts a heavy focus on them. While many people may profess to be at this level, their responses to everyday situations usually reveal that they are not consistently at it.
Example: "Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right."
This viewpoint either focuses on the right of the Heinz to choose life for his wife or on the right of private property and fair compensation. The law is not directly relevant.
6. Universal ethics principles orientation. This viewpoint puts an emphasis on abstract, absolute moral principles, and holds that laws are only valid when just, and that there is a duty to practice civil disobedience to unjust laws. The individual acts always because it is absolutely right, not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. It is controversial whether this viewpoint really exists.
Example: "Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant."
It is important to note that the higher stages are not necessarily morally superior to the lower stages. That is just the order in which people progress, according to the theory.
So, what do you think about this theory? It is interesting or total crap? What about Heinz? Yes or no, and why?
This can be moved to The Crucible if it needs to be, but I'd rather keep it here if the discussion stays toned-down so it doesn't scare everyone but the "usual crowd" off.