Activities:
Read the Heinz dilemma (http://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html), and consider what you would do if you were in his place.
How would your answer fit in Kohlberg’s stages?
Are there other responses that Kohlberg would consider “more moral”?
If so, how do you feel about this?
Do you think Kohlberg’s “Heinz dilemma” is a good measure of one’s morality? Explain.
Hi peers, as previously mentioned, I am glad I have you all in this interesting class so we can together discuss and share opinions about the human behavior and mental processes. I had a feeling since I read the chapter that “The Heinz dilemma” would be the perfect subject for this chapter’s discussion. First because our answers will give us an exact idea of what Kohlberg’s stage of moral development we are on, and second because it will also promote a moral reflection about different possible behaviors and their consequences not only to us, but also to our society as a whole. I usually comment to friends and closed ones when you enter the world of psychology you think you have a good idea of who you are, but then the more you know and the more you understand the field the more it drives you towards reasonings and perceptions you never thought about before. It feels like adventuring yourself in a journey where you do not certainly know what the final outcome will be.
Purpose of my discussion: My purpose in this discussion is not only to communicate what would I do if I was in Heinz’s shoes but to also expand in the topic and try to understand why.
Something I realized while reading this polemic dilemma is that Kolberg decided to involve the possible death of a wife instead of a friend or anyone else. This changes the story completely since we are now including “Love” in the equation, and I do not think we need to expand on how powerful this emotion is, as well as how convinced people behave when feeling it and defending it. I believe the reason why Kohlberg involved Heinz’s wife was to make the dilemma even more polemic and thus promote higher levels of moral orientation. I think this perspective already exposes my position; I would definitely do what I consider is necessary to save my wife, (Social Moral Orientation in Kohlberg’s stages) Let’s keep in mind that the purpose of this discussion is to be honest, sincere to ourselves. It would probably be more ethically accepted to state I would do the same for anyone dying in this world since everybody deserves the right to live, response that Kohlberg would consider “more moral”. But let us be honest, how many of us is at that moral level? How many of us would compromise his freedom and cause the suffering of our love ones to pursue universal ethical principles?. Only few and actually great people have been able to achieve such a level of moral development, and they have all paid the consequences, so you rather be convinced of your moral stage if decide to engage in such behavior.
My decision is based on my concept about what sharing a life with someone means, my beliefs, values and previous experiences, and I’m now moving towards a psychoanalytical perspective. I remember I was born and raised with my parents, who shared everything they had and decided to live according on the principles for making a marriage work, like respect, support, communication and trust. My parents were very successful at building trust, perhaps the basis of every relationship in your life and most importantly, marital relationships. So, this are all the aspects that influenced my perception of marriage, and what leads me to believe both of my parents would have tried whatever way possible for saving each other.
I personally believe Kohlberg’s “Heinz dilemma” would not be a good, or better said, accurate method for measuring one’s morality. This is based on one of the main facts of this theory’s criticism, “Moral reasoning versus Behavior”. I totally agree that situational factors may be a better predictor of moral behavior than a person’s moral stage. What about the situation of your child dying if not receiving the drug? Would you let him die to follow the law? What about cultural differences? What about cultural differences, “Individualistic versus Collectivistic” cultures? Kohlberg’s model of moral development may be reflecting the values of western culture (and hence not universal) of individual rights, harm and justice. A man in New Guinea said, “If no one helped Heinz, then we are all guilty of a crime. (LP 9D Moral reasoning 1 08/14/08). In this moral reasoning Carol Gilligan claims Kohlberg’s model is based on an ethic of individual rights, which is more common perspective for men.
In conclusion, even though the Heinz dilemma continues to face criticism, it is still considered a great work for expanding our knowledge about the different stages of moral development. I am sure many of us will have different opinions, which is in fact good. It means we are all unique individuals, with unique mental processes and behaviors, from a biopsychosocial approach.
