Summary A person named Heinz is seeing his wife die from a special type of cancer. Doctors advice that only one drug can an save her. The druggist was charging him ten times extra i.e $4000 for the drug. After borrowing money from family and friends, he could only raise half the money i.e. $1000. The druggist was not ready to sell it cheaper, as he wanted to make money from it. Being anxious, he broke into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Analysis To analyze this situation, Kohlberg 's model for Moral Development was used. Lawrence Kohlberg, indicates that the highest stage of moral development “comes when life decisions and actions are rooted in an autonomous, principled judgment of right and wrong, in full consciousness of …show more content…
The action is judged by what the society thinks about it and also the intension of the person. The person is seen as a good person, if other people in society approves that he is a good person. In case of Heinz dilemma following scenario can be made. Heinz should steal the drug even if he get caught, but by doing that people in society will think that his intensions were good and he is a good husband. The judge should not give punishment to Heinz because he only wants to save his wife’s life and also he did not stole anything else from the drug store which show his intensions were good. c) Stage 4: Authority and social-order orientation: d) In this stage the emphasis is to obey laws of society. If someone violates the law ,he should be held accountable and should be punished according to the law. In case of Heinz dilemma following scenario can be made. Heinz should be sentenced to jail for stealing the drug because it’s a crime. If exceptions are made in this case then people will start steeling things and make excuses afterwards which will lead to chaos in
At times in a person’s life, they might come across a few situations that leave them with a major decision between two or more options that challenge what they believe or what they might think is wrong or right. These are known as ethical dilemmas. Be it seeing a friend steal something and choosing between being honest and speaking up or letting it go. It can also be getting paid more than you earned and deciding if you’re going to be greedy and keep the money or return it. We run into these situations in our lives, some bigger and more influential on our destiny’s while others are small with no real consequences.
The basis of this paper is centered around two somewhat conflicting moral theories that aim to outline two ways of ethical thinking. The theory behind both rule consequentialism and Kantian ethics will be compared and evaluated. These theories can then be applied to a relatively complex moral case known as the “Jim and the Indians” example.
The primary issue that was addressed in the Journal article, “Moral Reasoning of MSW Social Workers and the Influence of Education” written by Laura Kaplan, was that social workers make critical decisions on a daily basis that effect others. They influence their clients’ lives through giving timely and appropriate funding to them and their families, through deciding should a family stay together or should they have a better life with another family, or connecting the client with appropriate resources that can enhance their lives. The article addresses data from an array of students from various universities. The researcher posed these questions; “Would social workers use moral reasoning (what is right and what is wrong) more prevalent if it was taught through an individual class during your MSW graduate studies, or if you obtain any other undergraduate degree, or if the ethic course was integrated in the curriculum?”
moral decisions, we will be analyzing why this scenario poses a dilemma, possible actions that
Douglas N. Husak's A Moral Right to Use Drugs In Douglas N. Husak’s A Moral Right to Use Drugs he attempts to look at drug use from an impartial standpoint in order to determine what is the best legal status for currently illegal drugs. Husak first describes the current legal situation concerning drugs in America, citing figures that show how drug crimes now make up a large percentage of crimes in our country. Husak explains the disruption which this causes within the judicial system and it is made clear that he is not content with the current way drugs are treated. The figures that Husak offers up, such as the fact that up to one third of all felony charges involve drugs, are startling, but more evidence is needed than the fact that a law is frequently broken to justify it’s repeal.
For this experiment we asked Norma Tapia to interview her to find out where exactly she lies in Kohlberg and Piagets moral stages. She is a seventeen year old high school senior who
middle of paper ... ... Essentially, the only fault being addressed is the conflicting action, as a conflict no longer occurs. Objections remain based on the inclusion of moral agents exclusively and the promotion of an individual’s goals, while introducing the additional problem of self-interest that accompanies prominent autonomy. The theory remains at fault, as it cannot be adequately amended by a single change.
...on drug testing. With so many people getting involved with this situation this will assure the governments decision. Now its up to government officials to make the correct decision and forget about drug testing welfare recipients.
The scenario analyzed for this prompt is highly controversial if seen through the eyes of a true Kantian. Not only does this excerpt put into play nearly every major aspect of Kantian theory, but it also acts as a double-edged sword in defeating most imaginable solutions. Throughout the next few pages, I will attempt to explain to the best of my knowledge what Immanuel Kant would argue given the situation, analyze various scenarios and explain the moral sense of such decisions.
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development is three levels consisting of two stages in each. Kohlberg’s Theory explains how a human’s mind morally develops. Level one is typically common in younger children. The two stages in level one are pre-conventional stages. Stage one is obedience and punishment driven; one will judge an action by the consequences given. Stage two is out of self interest. Level two is mostly common in teenagers. The stages in this level
Once in town, he headed directly to the Sheriff?s Office. When he got there he told the sheriff what happened, then they both, Ben and Madec went to the doctor. When they were in the doctor?s office, the doctor examined them both. When Ben went back to the sheriff?s, Madec went to the hospital, the sheriff arrested Ben. Ben told the truth about what happened, but they couldn?t understand what Madec did. They believed what Madec had said. When the trial came along, things were looking badly for Ben. Until the doctor stepped out. The doctor had found Ben?s slingshot, and said that he examined the dead guy, and found that the .358 bullet killed him. Ben was no longer arrested. They took him back to the sheriff?s office, where Ben didn?t report a crime of murder or aggravated assault, he reported an accident.
Lawrence Kohlberg conducted research on the moral development of children. He wanted to understand how they develop a sense of right or wrong and how justice is served. Kohlberg used surveys in which he included moral dilemmas where he asked the subjects to evaluate a moral conflict. Through his studies, Kohlberg observed that moral growth and development precedes through stages such as those of Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. He theorized that moral growth begins at the beginning of life and continues until the day one dies. He believed that people proceed through each stage of moral development consecutively without skipping or going back to a previous stage. The stages of thought processing, implying qualitatively different modes of thinking and of problem solving are included in the three levels of pre-conventional, conventional and post conventional development. (2)
An ethical dilemma is only examined in a situation which has the following conditions; the first condition takes place in a situation, when an individual has to make a decision on which course of action is best. The second condition is there must be more than one course of action to choose from. The third action is no matter what course of action is taken, certain ethical principles are conceded. In other terms, there is no perfect result. When defining what forms an ethical dilemma, it is important to make a division between ethics, morals, values, laws and policies.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: the nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
When using this theory, decisions are made based on what's right or wrong. This theory does not focus on the conclusion. Rather, it is more concerned about what others would think about the action taken. Will they agree? As with any other theory there are questions that should be asked. Fisher and Lovell (2009), "If we take the place of one of those affected by my decision and plan, would I regard the act positively or negatively?" "Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if my decision and plan were to become applicable to a similar situation, even to myself?" (p. 139-140). If the answer to these questions results to a positive conclusion, this means that the decisions made, will be considered ethical.