Heinz’s Dilemma And Perspectives On Moral Decision-Making

Heinz's Dilemma and Perspectives on Moral Decision-Making

Heinz's dilemma is a frequently employed example in ethics and morality classes, illustrating complex moral reasoning and development stages. The scenario involves a husband, Heinz, facing a moral crisis: should he break into a laboratory to steal a drug that could save his dying wife, despite the legal and ethical implications? This dilemma has been analyzed from multiple perspectives, each reflecting different underlying moral philosophies and developmental stages. This paper explores three distinct viewpoints: that Heinz should steal the drug because it is unfair for the druggist to charge such an exorbitant price; that Heinz should refrain from stealing because it is illegal and unethical; and that Heinz should steal the drug and accept the legal consequences, emphasizing a utilitarian approach.

Perspective 1: Heinz Should Steal the Drug Because It Is Unfair to Charge Such a High Price

Proponents of this perspective argue that the moral obligation to save a human life supersedes the legal and monetary considerations. The core belief here is that access to essential medicine should not be dictated by profit motives, especially when it involves life-and-death circumstances. From this standpoint, the druggist's decision to sell the drug at a vastly inflated price is inherently unjust and unethical. A person holding this view might be motivated by a belief in social justice and equity, emphasizing that healthcare should be a right, not a privilege reserved for the wealthy or those who can pay exorbitant prices.

Individuals who adopt this stance are often younger adults or those involved in social activism, highlighting their concern for fairness and human dignity. During their lives, they might encounter problems related to inequality, such as struggles with access to healthcare or advocacy for marginalized groups. Their successes are likely to include efforts to reform policies that perpetuate injustice and promote equitable healthcare access. This perspective aligns with principles discussed in social justice ethics, such as those articulated by Rawls (1971), who emphasized fairness and justice in societal arrangements.

Perspective 2: Heinz Should Not Steal the Drug Because It Is Illegal and Unethical

This viewpoint emphasizes the importance of law, order, and moral principles rooted in respect for property rights. From this perspective, theft undermines social stability and violates moral rules that prohibit taking others’ property without consent. A person with this outlook might believe that moral duty includes adherence to laws, even if they are imperfect or unjust in specific cases. Such an individual might be guided by Kantian ethics, which asserts that moral actions must adhere to universal principles, such as honesty and respect for the rights of others (Kant, 1785).

This stance is commonly held by older adults or individuals with a sense of civic duty, who believe that moral progress depends on upholding legal frameworks. Such individuals might face difficulties around moral dilemmas involving civil disobedience or situations where laws are unjust but still hold authority. Their successes often include contributions to maintaining social order and ensuring the fairness of legal systems. They might struggle with situations where laws conflict with personal moral beliefs but prioritize societal stability and respect for lawful procedures.

Perspective 3: Heinz Should Steal the Drug and Accept the Legal Consequences

The utilitarian perspective advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness or well-being, even if they involve breaking laws and accepting penalties. From this standpoint, Heinz’s decision to steal the drug is justified because it minimizes suffering and preserves human life. Proponents argue that moral actions should be judged based on their outcomes; if stealing the drug results in saving a life, then this act is morally permissible or even obligatory.

This view might be common among individuals who prioritize empathy, compassion, and the common good. People adopting this approach are often pragmatic thinkers, possibly middle-aged or older, who recognize that moral rules are sometimes subordinate to greater humanitarian concerns. Their experiences may involve witnessing or participating in social movements that challenge unjust laws or systemic failures. Their successes could include advancing social reforms and recognizing the importance of moral flexibility in complex situations. This perspective aligns with consequentialist ethics, notably utilitarianism, as described by Mill (1863), which emphasizes outcomes over strict adherence to rules.

Conclusion

Heinz’s dilemma exemplifies the complexities of moral reasoning and development. The different perspectives demonstrate how moral judgments are influenced by age, societal context, ethical philosophy, and personal experience. Whether emphasizing justice, legality, or compassion, each view offers valuable insights into human morality. Recognizing these diverse viewpoints enhances our understanding of ethical decision-making and encourages critical reflection on the principles guiding our choices in real-life moral dilemmas.

References

• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Heinz's dilemma and moral reasoning. (2015, February 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz's_dilemma
• Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger Publishers.
• Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some Do Care: Contemporary Lives of Moral Commitment. Free Press.
• Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: The psychology of moral development. Harper & Row.
• Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2016). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do It Right. John Wiley & Sons.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press.
• Rest, J. R. (1984). Morality. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 556–629). Wiley.