You might have heard of Lawrence Kohlberg and his theory of moral development. Although I don’t necessarily agree with his formulations, he came up with some interesting “moral dilemmas.” The following is his most famous one. As dads and/or husbands we might find ourselves in similar (though perhaps less dramatic) situations. I thought it might be interesting to read and consider, through Catholic lenses, the morality of the so called “Heinz dilemma.” Here it is:
“Heinz is married to a woman who is dying of cancer but whom doctors believe might be saved by a very expensive radium-compound drug. A pharmacist in a European town where Heinz lives controls the drug and will make it available at a cost 10 times what it costs to make. Heinz cannot afford that drug, nor can he find friends who will loan him the money to buy it. After trying to convince the pharmacist to lower the price or to let him pay for it later, Heinz breaks into the pharmacy and steals the drug. The question is whther he is justified in doing so.”
For reference, these are Kohlberg’s stages: (For simplicity’s sake I just did the cut and paste job from Wikipedia.com)
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
2. Self-interest orientation
( Will I get punished? What’s in it for me?)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
( The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
( Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
( Principled conscience)
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
I find these false-dilemmas pointless when it comes to deciding or describing morality. What about giving the guy a Noogie instead? Obviously this dilemma was custom-built with application to the third-world, drug patents, and big pharma.
The issue becomes much more fuzzy when you take the physical product (actual theft) and replace it with "intellectual property", which is a misnomer. Information is not matter, and to steal it is not theft. It is copyright violation. Copyright and patent are civil statutes, which being laws of Man, we should keep unless they violate God's law. I would think that violation of a drug patent in a way which would save millions of lives might be morally justifiable, but I think breaking into a big-pharma factory to steal the pills would not be morally licit, even if it saves millions. To go that far is to embrace complete moral relativism.+W+
I don't know that I would dismiss this out of hand. It isn't about the dilemna. It is about your (my) reasoning about whether it was justified or not. The insight comes from understanding why we think what we think.There is some truth in Kohlberg's levels as well. I see it as my children grow. That is some of the point about explaining rules to children, so they can develop out of the lower levels.Most people tend to operate at level 3/4. Most criminals don't get past the lower levels.
Obviously I agree with RobK, otherwise I wouldn't have posed the question. But what IS your reasoning given the dilemma? What about our Catholic faith makes us more or less equipped to make decisions when the right answer seems to straddle the fence? I've been discussing these ethical issues in a class full of voices that are unsympathetic to the Catholic view of ethics…I was wondering what insights and thoughts you all might have.Thanks
You can check out St. Thomas Aquinas's reasoning here:http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htmI think it is safe to say that St. Thomas would say it is no sin to take the drugs (see article 7 in the Summa link ). "In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common."Needless to say St. Thomas is operating at a post-conventional level. But why do you say people are unsympathetic to a Catholic view?
Thanks for the insight. As for the lack of sympathy, the class covers professional/healthcare ethics, the prof is a Catholic maligning, gay Episcopalian, and the students are either indifferent or relativist. Son
Peace and greetings from a first time poster.Jesus created moral dilemmas, e.g. "The Good Samaritan", when he wanted to educate folks as to right and wrong/good and bad. I would simply decide the proposition with the simplest solution. It isn't licit to do something evil to bring about something good. Where would the justification of evil end when it's done for the "good of the many" euthenasia, abortion, genocide?
Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still doing the wrong thing.
I've encountered this type of moral question previously, but formulated as a starving individual stealing bread or food. And in this situation, Aquinas is generally regarded as correct. What constitutes a genuine "need" often complicates similarly formatted propositions. Strongly desired materials (perhaps ubiquitous) may be considered a "need" when in fact they are nothing of the sort. With regard to pyrosapien2819's post, the point is that Heinz is not stealing. His taking is not sinful. Euthanasia, abortion, genocide are intrinsically evil, forbidden to all at all times. Quite different than Heinz's actions.
Here's a series of difficult things I weigh when making a moral decision:1. If I do this, what harm do I do to myself, to others, and to my relationship with God? (Conscience. "He has shown thee, Oh man, what is good and what the Lord requires of thee.")2. What moral principles or commandments of scripture apply to this situation? (Humble acceptance of revealed truth of the Christian faith. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.")3. Are there other alternatives that I have not yet considered.These moral dilemmas are artificial in that in the real world, there are seldom actually dilemmas. There are usually more than two ways out of a situation. If you can kill someone in self defense because they are trying to kill you, then it makes an absurd statement to say you should die, rather than steal that person's bread, who is part of the society that has provided no other means for you to eat in your extreme need. Those who have not provided any other way for you to eat, and are your neighbors are in violation of the law of God, and are not blameless themselves. My moral ambivalence about this situation is hard to explain. Who is to say, for instance that the medicine actually works, that the person is in fact even capable of stealing it, could actually steal it, and as would be necessary if he wishes to care for his dying wife in person, get away with it without anyone knowing that he who stole it, since he has probably publically decried the unavailability of this drug to him under his Health Care Plan of Hypothetical-HMO, USA. I mean, let's throw a martian in here, and make it really fun, Okay?Whaddya guys think?Warren
I disagree that it isn't stealing. Taking another persons property without permission is always stealing. I think what you mean is that it's justifiable stealing. Now, the man selling the item for 10X it's actualy value is also stealing. But let's examine the value of the item for a moment; 1. how much time and capital is invested in to the manufacturing of the item (in this case "life saving" medecine. 2. what is the projected future need of the item in social, and quantitative values. 3. What will the receiver of the money do with the profit?What if he is taking the profit and reinvesting it in the development of another item that will end up being instrumental in dramatically improving the health of the third world lowering the infant mortality rate by 50%? If the greater good justifies the means, then it would be wrong to take the medicine because the secondary or even tertiary effect would be the continued deaths of tens of 1,000's. If it is morally licit to take the "pills" without compensation, because you're doing it to save a life and the pill seller should have been charging a more "reasonable" price. Does that mean that stopping an abortion provider, using ANY means (bombing the facility, killing the "doctor")would be licit because the "doctor" shouldn't be killing babies anyway?Pyrosapien (TheAntisophist)
Human life takes precedence over other "rights" – including property. If confronted with the choice of taking the drug and letting someone die – I take the drug. If I could stop a terrorist from killing someone by "stealing" his car (or gun), I do it.While I am not faced with life and death dilemmas, I have been faced with many moral dilemmas in business life.
So pyrosapien2819, the government takes my money without my permission. I'm I morally right in refusing to pay taxes? Is the government immoral for imposing taxes against my will?
I don't want to get temps high here. I'm just saying that I don't feel that the ends justify the means. The scenario seems to be designed (by Heinz) to lead people to believe that moral relativism is a superior philosophy to other moral philosophies. As for paying taxes… I think we should all pay less
I don't mind paying them though. I drive on the roads, drink the water, flush my toilet, call 911, and live without fear of being taken over by some foreign country. I help provide schools so everyone has the opportunity to receive an education (not that I think our public school system is much to brag about with all their social agenda shtuff). The State is a necessary part of human society."Give to Caesar…" just don't worship him I guess.Pyro
Doing evil for a just end is still doing evil. Yes, that is right. The problem is that the same behavior is not evil under different circumstances. It is the intention that matters! If you see me shoot someone – you may judge me a murderer. But what if it is self defense? What if I am at war? What if it is Adolf Hitler and I am preventing a holocaust.Taking a legalistic interpretation is too easy of a way out. Think of the Pharisees who wanted Jesus killed because he violated sabbath laws. These folks were legalistic to the extreme. Beware simple legalisms – not everything goes (i.e., relativism is wrong), but life is not a simple set of rules either (i.e., we have to use judgment).
I'll referance some articles from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church in explaining my reasoning. I also don't want to beat a dead horse, especially my first time getting involved in a post on this site. I don't want to be the "new jerk" who tells everyone else they're wrong.I agree that there are times when it is morally licit to take actions where the unintended consequence is evil; such as the killing of another person. I have no problem shooting an intruder in my home and/or physically harming another person in an effort to protect the safety and security of others. I am a military veteran, my father was a state trooper, a brother is a deputy sheriff, another brother spent a year in Bahgdad. I completely understand and agree with the legitimate use of force for defense.I'm not 100% positive that the case we have been discussing can't fall in to that category. I just don't believe that it does given the scenario as it was laid out. Stealing is always evil and a wrong. Sometimes it's degree of offense is diminished and even licit given the circumstances of the situation and the intention of the person committing the act. I don't believe those conditions have been met here. CCC 1753: A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39 CCC 1756: It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.It is a grave injustice to "overcharge" for goods or services, (price gouging). Because of the actions that it can set in motion (riots, crime, etc.). It is considered stealing just as much as picking someones pocket.CCC 2405: Goods of production – material or immaterial – such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.Here is some great information on all the actions that are considered to be a violation of the 7th commandment. CCC 2401-2463: Catechism link on 7th commandment My personal inclination with Heinz's scenario is to incapacitate the possessor of the medecine and take it so that those who would benefit from it would be able to do so without being ripped off by the dirty money grubber. That's just my natural "country boy" inclination however. That's why I aspire to never act impulsively; sometimes I suceed
Pyro
Pyro,This is all good bantering. No hard feelings or pressure. I trust that we are all posting with good hearts. I appreciate your spending the time to post your comments and thoughts. I just wanted to make the point that your statement, "Taking another persons property without permission is always stealing." is not correct. And my issue of the taxes was an illustration. I agree taxes are needed (could be lower.) And your comments on taxes do not address your premise as quoted above. If we take the Heintz dilemma (add no contingencies) at face, I do not believe that Heinz is stealing.I love to debate to learn and understand, not "win."