In your responses I would like you to identify which of the six stages of Kohlberg’s moral reasoning each of your classmate’s answers represents and explain how you came to that conclusion. EXAMP

In your responses I would like you to identify which of the six stages of Kohlberg’s moral reasoning each of your classmate’s answers represents and explain how you came to that conclusion. EXAMP
Heinz should steal the drug because healthcare should be accessible and should be considered a human right, no one deserves to die when they have the opportunity to get better. Heinz has the obligation to his wife and is her advocate so he should want to help her at all costs which is why he should take it. Heinz wants to save his wife because otherwise, he wouldn’t be looking for other ways to get the money or steal the drug. Even if he got caught for stealing, that would still mean he did the very best he could for her and she would die with dignity.  The pharmacist was extremely greedy when they should have just taken the money Heinz had, as that would cover what the drug cost instead of the inflated amount the pharmacist wanted. Even though it cost a lot to make, for a small dose and the pharmacist was charging ten times more than the amount, it would be worth it to steal it because the pharmacist is greedy when there is a life at stake. Although stealing is wrong, saving a life is worth it when there is a chance they could be saved 2 I remember doing this exercise in my Ethics & Business class a couple of years ago. This is, obviously, a very complex ethical problem. Is it ever OK to do the wrong thing for the right reason? Is doing the wrong thing OK if it doesn’t really hurt anyone? If I am Heinz – I know that it would be wrong to steal the drug from the pharmacist; but I could lose my spouse if I don’t get it. This pharmacist is acting very unethically and won’t really be harmed if I take what my spouse needs. After all, he’s getting rich from people’s misery. If I had time, I could launch a negative PR campaign against him in the hopes that public opinion would make him change his mind; or, perhaps, make the authorities aware of what he is doing so they could compel him to do the right thing. But I don’t have time. My spouse is dying, and I will do anything I can to save her. In this case, I believe the ends justify the means. I would steal the drug. 3. This is actually an interesting discussion this week! After reading the heinz dilemma, it an extremely easy answer. Obviously he should break into the store and get the medication. It is simple. Why should someone die because you cannot afford treatment even after you have already went through every possible route? Someone’s life is more important than another $2,000. SOMeONES LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN $4,000. You cannot put a price on someones life and the pharmacist is. The pharmacist is charging four thousand dollars for a life saving medication. That seems immoral to me.  I work in a pharmacy, The amount of medication we give out for free because people cannot afford their copay is immense. We waive the copay for their insulin, blood pressure medicine, cholesterols medication, and sometimes pain medication.  This is straight from the American Pharmacists Association, “I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of pharmacy. … I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our profession’s moral, ethical and legal conduct. I will embrace and advocate changes that improve patient care.” I quoted this because that pharmacist had a moral and ethical obligation to dispense that medication. Rules are meant to keep order, but sometimes rules have to be broken for the better good, like saving a life. The patient should come first over payment. When you go into an ER, they don’t ask if you can afford the treatment before you come in. They treat you with the highest level professional care they can give. That pharmacist should be ashamed and should’ve bitten the bullet and take the loss of 4k or 2k dollars.  4. Although stealing is wrong, in this situation, I do not think it would be wrong for the man to steal the drugs from the druggist in order to save his wife’s life. The man tried very hard to bargain with the druggist, even coming up with half of the amount and offering to pay that and paying the rest later. At that point, even taking half the amount, the druggist would still be making a profit. I feel the worst part of this scenario is the druggist’s behavior and withholding something that could save another person’s life. In other words, profit over saving someone’s life is more of the issue to me. This man was left with no other option and obviously time is off the essence, therefore, I do not think it is wrong to do what he needs to do in order to save his wife.   5. Heinz has a situation that is a double edge sord. In his situation he is trying to save his wife and knowing that there is a possible medicine to help save her.  However, the solution is held within someone else’s hand of greed. With that said, one’s feelings supersede the mindset of reason. Heinz and multiple people had done their best to obtain at least ½ the medicine cost to pay the pharmacist. Heinz had suggested to pay the balance later, but the pharmacist had said no. The only thing Heinz could think of to do to save his wife’s life was to break into the pharmacy and steal the medicine. Is this right or wrong? I believe Heinz is acting on his emotions and after he had tried to do the right thing. It is not as if he just went to steal the needed drugs without paying but the fact that he did have several people to raise up half the funds and wanted to work with the pharmacist with the balance. Time is of the essence to save his wife’s life. The consequences of his actions of breaking and entering and stealing; Heinz was to deal with later out of love for his wife. Unfortunately, the law does not help those in need in this situation yet those not in need. Heinz is acting out with his heart for good yet bad with the laws to protection of property. 6. Yes, stealing is wrong, but in Heinz case, I think his reason is justified and he should steal the drug. I think what the druggist is doing is also stealing but in a most unconscionable way. He’s stealing, by grossly marking up the price of the drug simply for profit, not caring at all for anyone or anything except money. Heinz reason for stealing is to save a life. He went about getting as much money as he could in all the right ways and made a more than fair offer to the druggist, but the druggist refused because he wanted to line his pockets with money. In my opinion, the druggist deserves to lose money by having the drug stolen. Does stealing with good intentions make stealing right? Not necessarily, but I would do it if I were in Heinz’s shoes. 7. If I was Heinz’s position I would definitely steal the expensive drug for my sick wife. Putting right and wrong aside, my wife is dying and this person has medicine for them that could save their life. I think that saving someones life is worth a lot more than the value of the medicine or what the scientist is trying to sell the drug for. Heinz did the right thing by asking if he could get it for cheaper or pay him back later, but the seller denied because he was being greedy. I think that Heinz should steal the drug, putting aside ride and wrong and his morals.  8. I believe Heinz should steal the drug, because it’s a matter of life and death. The druggist can create more quantity of the drug and wouldn’t even notice if a single dose went missing. As for Heinz, if he doesn’t acquire the drug, he will have to watch his wife slowly die. Heinz tried every legal way to acquire the drug, and he failed. His only option is to steal this drug because he’s desperate and because the druggist won’t let him have it without the $4,000. His urgency, care for his dying wife, and the fact that the druggist won’t be affected by a single dose having been stolen, justifies the theft, in my opinion.  9.  Based on the short summary of Kohlberg’s Moral Dilemma, I think that in terms of him trying to save his wife, he should steal it because in terms of saving his wife’s life, there is nothing unethical when it comes to providing for his loved one by any means necessary, as long as it does not harm himself, her or anybody else. In the case of the doctors making the radium, the fact that they are overcharging him knowing of how critical her health is at this time, demonstrates their unethical approach as providers. There are many other ways in which even if they did charge them more for the medicine, that they can pay in partial payments or provide some type of deferral plan to work with them.                 There is no other alternative out there during that time and even if there was, each day is critical to her health. Put yourself in his shoes, wouldn’t you do the same for the one you love? 10. Reading Kohlberg’s Moral Dilemma made me feel sad. However, I might be wrong with this opinion, but being in Heinz’s situation I would probably have done the same thing Heinz was thinking of doing to save his wife from dying. Why? If I am desperate, and I did everything in my power to get 4,000 to pay for a drug that it was ten times more than what the drug coast, and even when Heinz asked to sell him the drug for cheaper, or he was going to pay him later, but the druggist response was a no. I believe Heinz’s situation is right, his wife is about to die and this is the only drug that can save her. The Druggist is not willing to lower the price, his charging ten times more,  and is not willing to let Heinz pay him later.  11. After reading Heinz’s dilemma, I was reminded of the John Q film where the father was so desperate to save his son’s life that he resorted to illegal and rather drastic measures in order to do so. Heinz’s consideration of breaking into the store to steal the drug is indicative of his willingness to make such a selfless sacrifice to save his wife’s life similar to John Q. Additionally, the druggist is clearly taking advantage of cancer patients by price gouging (i.e., the pharmaceutical company that created the EpiPen). With that being said, I believe that under the circumstances, Heinz should break into the store and steal the drug in order to save his wife’s life and suffer the consequences later EXAMPLE Heinz shouldn’t steal drugs because he’s not a thief and stealing is not the correct thing to do.  He’s been trying to do what he can without breaking the law, so you can’t blame him. I do not think he wants to sit in jail while his wife is sick.  Response. I think your answer best fits Kohlberg stage 4. Stage 4 is all about law and order and the authority to fit the social norms. Not stealing is something that you are not suppose to do under any circumstances in our society and you get punished for it if you do. From an early age we are taught not to steal  and that stealing is  wrong and immoral