Poll results: Should Heinz have stolen the medicine?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    12 70.59%
  • No

    2 11.76%
  • I don't know

    1 5.88%
  • Other

    2 11.76%
+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

  1. #1
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    First, for the poll question, read this scenario of a "Burglary in Europe" and answer it:
    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]
    Assume that Heinz is caught by the police and sent to jail.

    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.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  2. #2
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    What evidence has Kohlberg brought to bear to support his theory? How has he investigated it experimentally?

  3. #3
    Oliphaunt featherlou's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,209

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Right is right and wrong is wrong - you have to set some rules for how you're going to live your life if you're going to live any kind of mature life. Life is not about what you can get away with if you've got a good enough excuse.

  4. #4
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Within shouting distance of Hershey
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    We got this in my Hebrew school confirmation class. We kicked it around for a couple of classes before we came to a consensus. (The goal was to learn about ethics from the Jewish perspective, not to ascertain stages of moral development.)

    My feeling is that Heinz is responsible for his wife, period. He has an obligation to take care of her and to alleviate her suffering, however that happens. He has no obligation to the druggist. So there is some moral justification for stealing the medicine.

    That said, I think that while the druggist has the right to profit from his work, he does not have the right to gouge his customers who, presumably, need this drug. In fact, I would argue that if this drug is indeed a lifesaving miracle, the druggist has the obligation to get it to as many people as he can, simply because, according to Judaism, saving a life is the greatest good, and indeed, the responsibility one has for one's fellow human takes precedence over all others.

    So for those reasons, I think Heinz would be justified in stealing the medicine even if it means getting caught and going to jail, and even if it means depriving the druggist, who, frankly, should be reported for price gouging.
    There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. -- Ray Bradbury's "Coda"

  5. #5
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by MsRobyn
    So for those reasons, I think Heinz would be justified in stealing the medicine even if it means getting caught and going to jail, and even if it means depriving the druggist, who, frankly, should be reported for price gouging.
    But who decides whether he is "gouging" or simply asking an appropriate price for his product? After all, it may be in great demand, and if Heinz steals a dose, he could be denying it to someone who really could have paid for it. Does this person not deserve it more?

    Why does Heinz have an obligation to his wife, only, while the druggist has an obligation to everyone?

    ETA: featherlou, so what should those rules be? Can a person simply decide arbitrarily which rules to follow, or are some better than others? Is the right to life an "excuse"?

    Excalibur, I honestly don't know.

    Also, I'm going to predict that with the liberal makeup of this board, yes will win out.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  6. #6
    AWESOME SAUS Elyanna's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    417

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    While I think it is an interesting theory, I don't necessarily buy that people progress in the order stated, nor that they can't regress, or change their minds.

    And I said yes, he should steal it, because life is more important than property. Which apparently is a level 6 answer--your example for it was an almost word-for-word transcript of my thought process. I considered saying, "No, because stealing is wrong and violates the druggist's rights."

    Ask me another question and I won't guarantee you'll get another "level 6" answer, though.
    "There are no ordinary people. ... It is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit." C.S. Lewis

  7. #7
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    ITT worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat

  8. #8
    The Apostabulous Inner Stickler's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Collegeville, MN
    Posts
    2,172

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Secret option E. Heinz steals the recipe and puts it on the free market. Lotsa pharmaceutical companies start producing their own versions and he buys his wife the cherry-flavored version for a 10th of the druggist's price.
    I don't think so, therefore I'm probably not.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    57 varieties

  10. #10
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    I'm actually conflicted on the question. On the one hand, I think that Heinz should not steal the medicine because it violates the druggist's right to property, which is a "negative right"—no one is allowed to take his stuff. The woman's "right to life" is not a real right at all (although the actual right to life, i.e. the right not to be killed, certainly is); it is a "positive right"—the druggist is forced to give up his drug to the woman because she demands it. This seems to me to be a Stage 5 answer.

    On the other hand, if I were Heinz, I might do it anyway, if I thought there would be no consequences. (This is what I mean in the animal thread about the difference between "general" morality and "particular" morality.) This would be a Stage 2 answer. However, I wouldn't really do it because I believe that, ultimately, there are consequences. I think that all morality flows from consequences, which could even be interpreted as Stage 1.

    This is what leads me to believe that the theory may be so much interesting nonsense that doesn't really have any relation to human thought.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  11. #11
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    This is what leads me to believe that the theory may be so much interesting nonsense that doesn't really have any relation to human thought.
    No, it is really not interesting.

    (Also pretending for the moment that you will still be libertarian by the time you are old enough to marry, you will abandon such ideals if this situation ever actually happens to you.)

  12. #12
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    This is what leads me to believe that the theory may be so much interesting nonsense that doesn't really have any relation to human thought.
    No, it is really not interesting.

    (Also pretending for the moment that you will still be libertarian by the time you are old enough to marry, you will abandon such ideals if this situation ever actually happens to you.)
    What? With "consequences", I was referring to divine punishment. Otherwise, inescapably, some actions are without negative consequences. I'm not familiar with too many people abandoning religion because they get married.

    And I assume you're saying that Heinz should steal the medicine? Why? Just because it would be pleasing to him? What if he hates prison more than he loves his wife? That is, after all, ostensibly the point of prison. (I'm going to have to start one of these threads on criminal theory. )
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  13. #13
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    :noitacoL
    Posts
    651

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    This is what leads me to believe that the theory may be so much interesting nonsense that doesn't really have any relation to human thought.
    Actually, you seem to be forgetting, Kohlberg was a Child Developmentalist, who along with Jean Piaget helped to try to figure out how Children think and construct thoughts. :dub: Children.
    The whole point of his stages was the focus on the 3 levels: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional levels of thinking for people as they grow up from toddlers upwards to adolescents to young adults and then fully thinking and rational adults.
    These ideas of his are still (Along with Piaget's thoughts on Operational thinking) still used for childhood developmental theories. His whole point is that younger children are UNABLE to understand the arguments of Level 2 and 3 thinking, until the brains and minds have developed over time, and then they an slowly progress upwards. So for you to be wondering why they don't have any relation to human thought... it's because you're asking the WRONG COHORT of people (Unless you just wanted to see who's in stage 4 vs. Stage 5 or Stage 6, but that's missing the Forrest for the trees).

    You're applying these theories to adults here, which can be done, but really the focus on his ideas has been more influential for Children and when they're starting to recognize when they've reached a higher level of thought processing. So you while you can punish a Toddler for doing something bad, he's only going to be able to interpret it at the level he knows- which is Stage 1: Pre-Conventional things.
    Why does he not draw on the wall? Because he got punished. If he gets punished worse, then it must be even MORE of a Bad thing. There is nothing else for the child to reason about, and he will not do so.
    As a child matures physically and emotionally then they are capable of moving on to the next level- when a child is no longer a toddler but around ages 5-7 or so, his view of the world has expanded and he recognizes there are others who live and exist in this world other than himself. And as the child ages, so will his thought processing.

    The Heinz Dilemma and Kohlberg's theories are best used on CHILDREN to actually SEE what developmental stage their at, that's the practical use.
    By you presenting it to Adults and all whose brains have (for the most part) developed, they've already hit the stages of thinking on here and can move on and see the question for what its worth.
    The key is to ask the Question to those who CANNOT understand where it's going (ie: children). THAT'S the practical application of Kohlberg, you use his ideas, Piaget's ideas, and Erikson's Developmental stages and you can start to construct a Childhood Developmental stage for what stage of thinking a child is currently experiencing.
    "Dude, your statistical average, which was already in the toilet, just took a plunge into the Earth's mantle." ~ iampunha

  14. #14
    Content Generator AllWalker's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Antipodea
    Posts
    1,479

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    I find ethics and morality to be strange concepts. Instead, I prefer to view these types of dilemnas in terms of what is achievable, sustainable and fair to as many people as possible, rather than right vs wrong.

    In this example, the druggist is free to charge whatever he likes for the medicine. $10, $210, $210,000, whatever he wants. However, if the price is too low he will not be able to continue operating for long, and if the price is too high it will lead to the situation described in the OP, or someone undercuts him with a cheaper alternative.

    The husband is going to view the dilemna the following way - the question is not a case of right and wrong, it is a matter of whether the risk of being caught, combined with the consequences of being caught, is a price worth paying for saving the life of his wife. The druggist's right to property doesn't factor in to his decision, as he will view his wife's life as more important than a piece of property.

    It is in the druggist's interest to keep the cost as low as possible without endangering his profit margins. It is in the husband's interests to either risk the gaol time or risk his wife dying. It is in society's best interest to deter criminals by whatever preventative means and punishments are at their disposal. If all elements within this society act in their own best interests, while being aware that others will act in their own best interests, we see a reasonable ethic emerging.
    Something tells me we haven't seen the last of foreshadowing.

  15. #15
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by RoOsh
    (Unless you just wanted to see who's in stage 4 vs. Stage 5 or Stage 6, but that's missing the Forrest for the trees).
    That actually was what I was focusing on, or adults and adolescents in general. I wasn't really thinking about children, but you do make a good point.

    I find ethics and morality to be strange concepts. Instead, I prefer to view these types of dilemnas in terms of what is achievable, sustainable and fair to as many people as possible, rather than right vs wrong.
    It's called utilitarianism. I don't personally agree with it because I don't think the will, or even the good, of the majority allows for oppressing the minority. For example, although this is a cliched argument, if we could cure cancer by killing ten innocent people, it would still be wrong to kill them, and we shouldn't do it, for they have just as much right to life as those people dying of cancer. And while the lives of those people have expired naturally, killing the ten would be a positive act of evil.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  16. #16
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    :noitacoL
    Posts
    651

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    For example, although this is a cliched argument, if we could cure cancer by killing ten innocent people, it would still be wrong to kill them, and we shouldn't do it, for they have just as much right to life as those people dying of cancer. And while the lives of those people have expired naturally, killing the ten would be a positive act of evil.
    And yet, someone can be in Stage 5 or 6 and completely justify why it's okay to Kill the 10 people.
    That's the point, if they can JUSTIFY it that's all that's needed to figure the stages out.

    The point is for those who cannot comprehend such things. Which is why if you asked a 5 year old about Utilitarianism vs. Moral Absolutism vs. Natural rights of man, and how that applies to him getting spanked for drawing on the walls. He's not going to tell you much.
    Ask the 9 year old about why he has to study for his test tomorrow and not watch TV until it's done, and you might get a different answer from a 7 year old, and you'll most certainly get a different answer than from a 17 year old or a 25 year old graduate student. That's the point of the arguments. To see how people justify their thinking and what thought processes they're using to rationalize their arguments. So again- asking Adults this question... :shrug: Anything Past Stage 3 means you've matured some what to be capable of thoughts that a 13 year old kid that tries to dress up Goth so "he can be an individual" while not realizing that he's still blending to get social acceptance from his Gothic Peer Buddies. Anything else, and you're overthinking it's application because the practicality of it then diminishes as people reach the higher stages.
    "Dude, your statistical average, which was already in the toilet, just took a plunge into the Earth's mantle." ~ iampunha

  17. #17
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by RoOsh
    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    For example, although this is a cliched argument, if we could cure cancer by killing ten innocent people, it would still be wrong to kill them, and we shouldn't do it, for they have just as much right to life as those people dying of cancer. And while the lives of those people have expired naturally, killing the ten would be a positive act of evil.
    And yet, someone can be in Stage 5 or 6 and completely justify why it's okay to Kill the 10 people.
    That's the point, if they can JUSTIFY it that's all that's needed to figure the stages out.
    I know. I was just stating my personal opinion, completely unrelated to the theory. :smile:
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  18. #18
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Within shouting distance of Hershey
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Quote Originally posted by MsRobyn
    So for those reasons, I think Heinz would be justified in stealing the medicine even if it means getting caught and going to jail, and even if it means depriving the druggist, who, frankly, should be reported for price gouging.
    But who decides whether he is "gouging" or simply asking an appropriate price for his product? After all, it may be in great demand, and if Heinz steals a dose, he could be denying it to someone who really could have paid for it. Does this person not deserve it more?
    It may very well be in great demand, but if you restrict its access to only those people who can afford it, you end up assigning a higher value to people with money, regardless of whatever else they've managed to accomplish.

    Why does Heinz have an obligation to his wife, only, while the druggist has an obligation to everyone?
    Because the druggist has something that could be essential to the survival of people who have that particular form of cancer. Thus, he is responsible for the lives of more people. Heinz, on the other hand, has no such responsibility to other people, just to his own wife, who he swore to care for when he took his marriage vows. Furthermore, there are ways to fairly compensate the druggist in ways that don't involve charging so much for his product. He can sell the patent rights, for example, or he can work out a way to produce the medicine in larger amounts, if that is feasible, thus lowering his costs.

    Also, I'm going to predict that with the liberal makeup of this board, yes will win out.
    I don't think it's an issue of liberal vs. conservative. I think it's just a reflection of what values we choose to assign. There is no right or wrong there.
    There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. -- Ray Bradbury's "Coda"

  19. #19
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, North Side
    Posts
    1,182

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibur
    What evidence has Kohlberg brought to bear to support his theory? How has he investigated it experimentally?
    Experimentally? On human subjects? Probably not a lot, but I'm not sure. Experimentation on the development of human subjects is frowned on these days. Pesky ethics lawyers.

    The theory was developed when Kohlberg was doing postgrad work at the University of Chicago, although as far as I know, he never stopped refining and working on it. It was done through empirical research methods using a question and answer format. While it has had some detractors (most famously, one of his students, Carol Gilligan, objected because all his initial subjects were male, and she thought women would come up with answers not focused on justice, but on interpersonal relationships. She is often said to have been "a critic" of Kohlberg, but if you ask me, her stages, based on women, are almost identical to Kohlberg's, based on men.), there have been lots of researchers over the years who have mostly borne out the theory.

    Disagreements are generally on the existence or not of Stage 6 as a stable and consistent state of being - many of us are capable of operating there in theory, or to follow the argument at that level, but it's been questioned whether a significant number of people, or anyone at all, operates there on a daily basis, when not being questioned about it. (I'm not one of those people. I feel like I think as a Stage 6, as do a lot of people I know, but we're widely considered weirdos by society at large, and unlikely to be studied by respectable psychologists.) Another criticism is related, that is that the theory rests on the assumption that we reason before we decide things. It's been suggested, and recent MRI research seems to suggest, that we decide on a course of action up to 60 seconds before we realize we've done so. All our moral basis is in fact rationalization for an intuitive decision. In this case, Kohlberg's stages would be not of moral development used to make decisions, but of preferred intellectual techniques used to rationalize decisions with no prior formal reasoning. It's all post hoc.

    But Kohlberg's not widely considered a kook, if that's what you were trying to intimate. He's the 16th most commonly referenced psychologist in introductory textbooks, according to a study done by Haggbloom et al., and the 30th most eminent psychologist of the 20th century, based on citations, quotations and references in other people's work. His theory may be disproven in years to come, but at the moment, it's generally recognized as sound.
    Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one. A moment. In childhood. When it first occurred to you that you don't go on forever. Must have been shattering. Stamped into one's memory. And yet, I can't remember it.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by WhyNot
    Experimentally? On human subjects? Probably not a lot, but I'm not sure. Experimentation on the development of human subjects is frowned on these days. Pesky ethics lawyers.
    There's plenty of research still done on human subjects, including human children. Cognitive scientists have done experiments on children literally hours old. (I assume the parents are grad students who got knocked up?)

    I was actually speaking rhetorically, just because the "theory" is so silly and unfalsifiable.


    But Kohlberg's not widely considered a kook, if that's what you were trying to intimate.
    I didn't say that. He's a psychologist, that's all.

  21. #21
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by MsRobyn
    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Quote Originally posted by MsRobyn
    So for those reasons, I think Heinz would be justified in stealing the medicine even if it means getting caught and going to jail, and even if it means depriving the druggist, who, frankly, should be reported for price gouging.
    But who decides whether he is "gouging" or simply asking an appropriate price for his product? After all, it may be in great demand, and if Heinz steals a dose, he could be denying it to someone who really could have paid for it. Does this person not deserve it more?
    It may very well be in great demand, but if you restrict its access to only those people who can afford it, you end up assigning a higher value to people with money, regardless of whatever else they've managed to accomplish.
    But considered the basis of our money system. Resources and labor are scarce; there isn't an infinite number of them. If there were an infinite number, they would be free for anyone to take, and so they would not cost anything. If this were the case, money would be unnecessary. But we do use a system of money, a system based on free exchange between equals. People give what resources or labor they own in return for money to buy resources or hire labor for themselves. The more money one has, the more resources one is able to acquire; and there are only two ways that money can be obtained: free exchange or theft (inheritance is free exchange of the parent to the child). Therefore, excluding thieves, one always has more money because he "deserves" it—it was given to him freely. No one has the right to steal it from him, or to force him to give away what he bought with was given to him.

    The very fact that the druggist is able to set a price for the drug proves that it is not in infinite supply or readily available. The druggist has bought the original material and converted it into a drug, and so he has created a product people want to buy from him. He has no obligation to sell it; he could choose to retire and join a monastery. But if he does choose to sell it, he can sell it at whatever price he chooses. Now, if the drug were in infinite supply, he would not be able to demand anything, or maybe only a small service charge for convenience. But there is a limited supply, and more people want it than can have it. The system of money that we have is what decides which of these people should get it: the ones who can compensate him most for his work. This is why the rich "deserve" the medicine (I say "deserve", since it's not really due to them in a mandatory way. He can just as easily make the choice to give some to the poor, as well). The rich literally have higher value—it's the whole point of being rich; if it didn't get you anything special, what would make it different from poverty?

    In fact, by being rewarded so greatly, not only is the druggist motivated not to quit selling the drug become, say, a lawyer, instead, but other people will become envious of his success and seek to emulate him. They will make similar drugs that treat the same cancer, and with so many drugs on the market, the price will go down to where even Heinz can afford it. What if Heinz's wife had died in the meantime? It is true that if the drugs are not produced quickly enough, some people will die of cancer before they can afford it, but for Heinz to steal it would have denied other people, who were willing to go along with the law and respect the druggist's right to property, their right to live, since there necessarily must be fewer drugs than people who need them.

    [quote:22bubujr]Why does Heinz have an obligation to his wife, only, while the druggist has an obligation to everyone?
    Because the druggist has something that could be essential to the survival of people who have that particular form of cancer. Thus, he is responsible for the lives of more people. Heinz, on the other hand, has no such responsibility to other people, just to his own wife, who he swore to care for when he took his marriage vows. Furthermore, there are ways to fairly compensate the druggist in ways that don't involve charging so much for his product. He can sell the patent rights, for example, or he can work out a way to produce the medicine in larger amounts, if that is feasible, thus lowering his costs.[/quote:22bubujr]

    But patents are highly immoral in this scenario (and in all others). You give the druggist, who has merely invented a drug to sell for money, the right to use force to stop all other druggists from making the same drug to sell for money. Information is not scarce: no one can own it, and it can be copied infinitely. Why is it, in your view, perfectly fine to take his drug, the tangible product he owns in finite supply, but a crime to "steal" his idea, which he still has an infinite supply of after you are done with your "theft"?

    You also punish the druggist for inventing a drug that treats cancer: if he had, like Heinz, merely gotten a regular job he would have no duty to anyone but himself; but since he has done this act of production far more beneficial than anything Heinz has done, he is given the burden of working for what others decide is his "fair" compensation. He is required, in your opinion, to put forth effort to expand his operations just to maintain more money coming in than what the government takes from him, whereas he may want to retire and enjoy the rest of his life without having a stressful job.

    The druggist has no positive obligation to society for inventing his drug. He has only the responsibilities of everyone else: not to use force against others. His only "obligation" is to himself. No one has the right to take what he makes from him.

    And you don't honestly believe that people have this obligation to give to others what they do not need when it applies to your own life, either, unless you have taken a vow of poverty. Consider the fact that there are people living in poverty and starving, unable to afford decent food: surely you have an obligation to each and every one of them because you have the things that they need? But if a homeless man broke into your house and took your food and your valuables to buy more food later, I doubt that you would not interfere with him. There are people who have no beds—would you let all who come to your door take yours? There are people who have no decent clothes—would you let all who come to your door take yours? There are people who have no shelter—would you let all who come to your door live in yours—indefinitely? There are people who do not have enough money—would you let all who come to your door take all of yours, until you have no more?

    No, you wouldn't, because those things belong to you. They do not belong to the people who come to your door asking for them. And neither does the drug belong to Heinz's wife.

    [quote:22bubujr]Also, I'm going to predict that with the liberal makeup of this board, yes will win out.
    I don't think it's an issue of liberal vs. conservative. I think it's just a reflection of what values we choose to assign. There is no right or wrong there.[/quote:22bubujr]

    But there is liberal vs. conservative. Well, those are broad categories, but people don't just assign values randomly. Of course, Kohlberg's theory is that the values that are assigned have no relation to the level of logical argument understood.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  22. #22
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Within shouting distance of Hershey
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    I may not invite people to my home to take my possessions, but I do give food and old clothes to charity so others may share what I have. The charity is better equipped to distribute those things (and money) to the people who need it.

    That said, I didn't say that the druggist isn't entitled to profit from his creation. I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth. I do believe that he has an obligation to get his medicine to the people who need it, and if that means selling it for the $1000 that Heinz was able to raise, well, that's still a handsome profit. Heck, selling the medicine to three people for $1000 each earns more than selling it to one person for $2000.
    There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. -- Ray Bradbury's "Coda"

  23. #23
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by MsRobyn
    That said, I didn't say that the druggist isn't entitled to profit from his creation. I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth. I do believe that he has an obligation to get his medicine to the people who need it, and if that means selling it for the $1000 that Heinz was able to raise, well, that's still a handsome profit. Heck, selling the medicine to three people for $1000 each earns more than selling it to one person for $2000.
    But surely he can get it out to even more people if he gives it away instead of selling it for the steep price of $1000 a dose? After all, if Heinz had been a homeless man, he wouldn't have been able to scrape together even that much. Or, to be fair, should we allow the druggist to sell it for $200, at least making no profit? Where do you draw the line? How much money is he "allowed" to make?

    ETA: It's true that selling it to three people for $1000 makes the druggist more money than $2000 for one, but $2000 for three is more than either of them. So is $1,000,000,000 for a dose, even if he can only sell it to Heinz Buffet. The question does not mention whether the druggist is selling his drugs to other people or not, but if he is doing good business at $2000 a dose, why should he switch to $1000 a dose and do the same or slightly better business for less? Why shouldn't he charge a billion dollars for it and sell it to the only man in the world who can buy it, then quit his job, buy a yacht, and go have fun for the rest of his life?
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  24. #24
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, North Side
    Posts
    1,182

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Vox, you know that this test wasn't designed with a right answer, right? The point isn't to argue other people into accepting your yes or no, or your reasoning behind it. There are perfectly valid yes and no answers at each stage of development. The yes or no is entirely beside the point, and not what the test was designed to elicit.

    If you want to argue the hypothetical, then that's kosher, I guess, but it has nothing to do with Kohlberg's Stages of Development, as the thread is labeled.
    Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one. A moment. In childhood. When it first occurred to you that you don't go on forever. Must have been shattering. Stamped into one's memory. And yet, I can't remember it.

  25. #25
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    :noitacoL
    Posts
    651

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    I think he just wants to argue over something honestly and likes pulling out random scenarios to do so. If so, this should be over in the Debates section and NOT in the Polls.
    "Dude, your statistical average, which was already in the toilet, just took a plunge into the Earth's mantle." ~ iampunha

  26. #26
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, North Side
    Posts
    1,182

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by RoOsh
    I think he just wants to argue over something honestly and likes pulling out random scenarios to do so. If so, this should be over in the Debates section and NOT in the Polls.
    Good point. I actually like Vox's threads, because I like to discuss/argue, too. I think I'll report this and suggest moving it over to the debate forum. Mod call, of course.
    Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one. A moment. In childhood. When it first occurred to you that you don't go on forever. Must have been shattering. Stamped into one's memory. And yet, I can't remember it.

  27. #27
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by WhyNot
    Vox, you know that this test wasn't designed with a right answer, right? The point isn't to argue other people into accepting your yes or no, or your reasoning behind it. There are perfectly valid yes and no answers at each stage of development. The yes or no is entirely beside the point, and not what the test was designed to elicit.

    If you want to argue the hypothetical, then that's kosher, I guess, but it has nothing to do with Kohlberg's Stages of Development, as the thread is labeled.
    Yes, of course I know that the test wasn't designed with a right answer. But no one else seems to have much to say about the theory itself, and MsRobyn explained why she thought that he should, so I felt the need to explain why I think that he shouldn't. I don't know why we can't talk about both the theory and the scenario at the same time.

    ETA: I suppose this can be moved, but I'd rather it stay here in the hope of getting at least a few more other opinions. I can stop debating MsRobyn in this thread, if you think I must. We've both made our opinions known.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  28. #28
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Within shouting distance of Hershey
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    ETA: I suppose this can be moved, but I'd rather it stay here in the hope of getting at least a few more other opinions. I can stop debating MsRobyn in this thread, if you think I must. We've both made our opinions known.
    [modhat:2q25i9a0]I'm moving this to The Crucible. I know it's intended to be a poll and all, but it's a poll that has become and probably will continue to be a rather nuanced debate. You'll also get more opinions there, I think.[/modhat:2q25i9a0]
    There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. -- Ray Bradbury's "Coda"

  29. #29
    Oliphaunt featherlou's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,209

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    <snip>
    ETA: featherlou, so what should those rules be? Can a person simply decide arbitrarily which rules to follow, or are some better than others? Is the right to life an "excuse"?
    <snip>
    My rules for my life. I follow them because they are what works for me; I don't abandon them, because my morals and ethics are part of what makes me me. The only thing that gives me pause here is the idea of compromising my principles to save someone else's life, because my principles aren't more important than someone else's life, but at the same time, morals are for difficult situations, not just easy ones.

    And frankly, I subscribe to the Kirk rule of moral dilemmas - there's always a third way.

  30. #30
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by featherlou
    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    <snip>
    ETA: featherlou, so what should those rules be? Can a person simply decide arbitrarily which rules to follow, or are some better than others? Is the right to life an "excuse"?
    <snip>
    My rules for my life. I follow them because they are what works for me; I don't abandon them, because my morals and ethics are part of what makes me me. The only thing that gives me pause here is the idea of compromising my principles to save someone else's life, because my principles aren't more important than someone else's life, but at the same time, morals are for difficult situations, not just easy ones.

    And frankly, I subscribe to the Kirk rule of moral dilemmas - there's always a third way.
    Is there anything that makes a moral system bad, other that the fact that you disagree with it? I mean, if yours is based on what works for you, can other people just do what works for them?

    Also, I don't mean my tone in this thread, with asking so many questions, to be aggressive. I'm afraid it might come off that way, but I'm just asking them to get to the bottom of the issues.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  31. #31
    Stegodon Heffalump's avatar
    Registered
    May 2009
    Posts
    341

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by RoOsh
    The Heinz Dilemma and Kohlberg's theories are best used on CHILDREN to actually SEE what developmental stage their at, that's the practical use.
    By you presenting it to Adults and all whose brains have (for the most part) developed, they've already hit the stages of thinking on here and can move on and see the question for what its worth.
    I completely agree.

    Your analysis of the stages reminds me of Joseph Campbell's assessment of 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' He summed up the parable (and I'm paraphrasing here) that it starts out with a baby that turns into a camel. The camel is loaded up with rules and needs to figure out how to live within the rules. After the rules are mastered, then the camel transcends that and becomes a lion who has the ability to think beyond the rules.

    Campbell's analogized the parable to great artists. They first learn the rules of their craft and understand how the rules work. Then later, they can transcend those rules and create something outside the box and original.

    And it's also how we as humans learn to interact with each other as the stages of moral development portrays.

  32. #32
    Stegodon Heffalump's avatar
    Registered
    May 2009
    Posts
    341

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Is there anything that makes a moral system bad, other that the fact that you disagree with it? I mean, if yours is based on what works for you, can other people just do what works for them?
    Sure, and they often do. Until they meet up with social pressure. Then they need to decide whether they can deal with the social pressure or want to change their stance.

  33. #33
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    [quote=Heffalump and Roo]
    Quote Originally posted by "Vox Imperatoris":3js3hle6
    Is there anything that makes a moral system bad, other that the fact that you disagree with it? I mean, if yours is based on what works for you, can other people just do what works for them?
    Sure, and they often do. Until they meet up with social pressure. Then they need to decide whether they can deal with the social pressure or want to change their stance.[/quote:3js3hle6]

    But what if the people with bad moral systems are in the majority or have greater power? What makes them wrong, then, as long as they have the power to carry out their intentions without compromise?
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  34. #34
    Stegodon Heffalump's avatar
    Registered
    May 2009
    Posts
    341

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    But what if the people with bad moral systems are in the majority or have greater power? What makes them wrong, then, as long as they have the power to carry out their intentions without compromise?
    A good example of this is Germany under Hitler's power. Within Germany, most people followed. It was only the pressure (war) from other countries that stopped them.

    So the next question would be. . .what if none of the other countries either resisted or were able to overtake the German rule? That's an interesting question. One to ponder.

  35. #35
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    [quote=Heffalump and Roo]
    Quote Originally posted by "Vox Imperatoris":2pxhva4j
    But what if the people with bad moral systems are in the majority or have greater power? What makes them wrong, then, as long as they have the power to carry out their intentions without compromise?
    A good example of this is Germany under Hitler's power. Within Germany, most people followed. It was only the pressure (war) from other countries that stopped them.

    So the next question would be. . .what if none of the other countries either resisted or were able to overtake the German rule? That's an interesting question. One to ponder.[/quote:2pxhva4j]

    Yeah, I hesitated to Godwinize the thread to support my argument. That's really what I was getting at.

    ETA: I should reiterate, since I see two "Other" responses, that I'm aware the the theory is explicitly based on the fact that your answer—yes or no—doesn't matter. I'm just curious what the general opinion is on the dilemma.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  36. #36
    Stegodon Heffalump's avatar
    Registered
    May 2009
    Posts
    341

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Yeah, I hesitated to Godwinize the thread to support my argument. That's really what I was getting at.
    Could you go back and summarize your point? I've read the thread now twice and I'm not seeing how this relates to any point you've made.

  37. #37
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    [quote=Heffalump and Roo]
    Quote Originally posted by "Vox Imperatoris":3rcuot0v
    Yeah, I hesitated to Godwinize the thread to support my argument. That's really what I was getting at.
    Could you go back and summarize your point? I've read the thread now twice and I'm not seeing how this relates to any point you've made.[/quote:3rcuot0v]

    Sorry, all these Crucible threads start to run together after a while. I was mostly just talking about the basis of free exchange in this one, but I did make this comment:

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    It's called utilitarianism. I don't personally agree with it because I don't think the will, or even the good, of the majority allows for oppressing the minority. For example, although this is a cliched argument, if we could cure cancer by killing ten innocent people, it would still be wrong to kill them, and we shouldn't do it, for they have just as much right to life as those people dying of cancer. And while the lives of those people have expired naturally, killing the ten would be a positive act of evil.
    I think that a system of rights is necessary to avoid unjust action against the minority by the majority or the powerful. Otherwise, all you have, essentially, is a "might makes right" system.

    I will post to explain the basis of these rights later; I'm getting too tired to think properly right now.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  38. #38
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Within shouting distance of Hershey
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    I think that a system of rights is necessary to avoid unjust action against the minority by the majority or the powerful. Otherwise, all you have, essentially, is a "might makes right" system.

    I will post to explain the basis of these rights later; I'm getting too tired to think properly right now.
    But isn't a society of haves vs. have-nots a form of might makes right? I mean, having the money to get what you want regardless of the needs of others is a form of might, even if it doesn't involve physical or psychological force?
    There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. -- Ray Bradbury's "Coda"

  39. #39
    Oliphaunt featherlou's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,209

    Default Re: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

    [quote=Vox Imperatoris]
    Quote Originally posted by featherlou
    Quote Originally posted by "Vox Imperatoris":3c15gebq
    <snip>
    ETA: featherlou, so what should those rules be? Can a person simply decide arbitrarily which rules to follow, or are some better than others? Is the right to life an "excuse"?
    <snip>
    My rules for my life. I follow them because they are what works for me; I don't abandon them, because my morals and ethics are part of what makes me me. The only thing that gives me pause here is the idea of compromising my principles to save someone else's life, because my principles aren't more important than someone else's life, but at the same time, morals are for difficult situations, not just easy ones.

    And frankly, I subscribe to the Kirk rule of moral dilemmas - there's always a third way.
    Is there anything that makes a moral system bad, other that the fact that you disagree with it? I mean, if yours is based on what works for you, can other people just do what works for them?[/quote:3c15gebq]
    Yes, I think there are things that make moral systems bad, other than them not being mine. A moral system based on hurting other people is bad. A moral system based on letting others get hurt is bad. I think there are things that are objectively bad in the world, and should not be endorsed by anybody. I also realize that it is very difficult for one person or group of people to decide what those things are for everyone.
    Also, I don't mean my tone in this thread, with asking so many questions, to be aggressive. I'm afraid it might come off that way, but I'm just asking them to get to the bottom of the issues.
    I think you're asking good questions.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts