Paper Example on Kohlberg Dilemmas: Should Heinz Steal?

Introduction

Ideally, this is a less realistic situation since just a mere druggist would not discover a cure for cancer. Making such a scenario for a drug is somehow realistic, but it is weird too. Such a situation is highly linked to the capitalist system where one believes in discoveries that are "intellectual property" that can be stolen. People believe that everyone is entitled to the right to life, which is logically impossible. However, there is the profit motive being more crucial than people's motive. In this regard, there is the aspect of capitalism an inhuman system that has no connection with real humanity related to one another.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Discussion

Interestingly, if the cure is radium how does the wife or Heinz know how it shall be administered? If the drug is easy to administer Heinz should steal the drug to save the wife. Arguably, Heinz values the wife more, and the health or survival of the wife is more important than going to jail. The moral aspect here is that there exists no principles or rights existing here. Theft revolves around property rights nothing is right if it goes against the rights of another per person essence, the druggist involves "property rights" that cannot be trumped into the right to life of the wife. Above all, the action is not wrong since saving the life of another person is important (Milan, Stefania, 59). Besides, theft supports actions like this meaning that it is not wrong.

Stealing the drug is a right thing to be done since it is not wrong as it saving the life of another person. Equally, not stealing the drug is a right thing as these actions are wrong from the ethical perspective provided the information that exists in this case. Property rights are nonsense as it is rated post-conventional.

Heinz does not have an obligation or duty to steal the drug. As a society, people have an obligation and responsibility of supporting the health of a wife in the best way that one can. However, this does not mean that Heinz is the one to do that. Analogy proves that people recognize people recognizes the rights of others like the right to be free from the fire but does not demand that if there is any passerby should stop the fire according to the penalty of law. One shall recognize the fact that quenching the fire is a specialized task and the firefighters are equipped in performing such tasks and not just anyone in the streets. Therefore, there is no obligation of Heinz to cure the wife. If there is a person who has the task of providing medication here is the druggist since he provides life-saving medications since anyone that needs them shall have access to them. The action that Heinz takes is a matter of personal - self-risk and moral; an evaluation that does not include concern obligations or duties.

Conclusion

This discussed case is an issue of consequentialism where the actions of Heinz are not crucial in evaluating if he is right or wrong. If he ends up in jail while the wife dies, his actions shall not be considered wrong. Equally, if he remains free while the wife is cured his actions shall not be considered right. The evaluation and analysis are based on the fact that druggist does not have the rights of preventing Heinz from acquiring the drugs. Equally, every other factor incorporating consequences remains irrelevant in an ethical consideration since Heinz is right if he decides to steal the drugs.

Work Cited

Milan, Stefania. "Stealing the Fire." VOICE MATTER (2016): 59.