正文
Here is something called “Heinz Dilemma”.
Following is quoted from “Kohlberg's stages of moral development” from Wikipedia.com except the last three paragraphs.
“Heinz dilemma
A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe.
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife.
Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. The point of interest is the justification that the participant offers. Below are examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages. It is important to keep in mind that these arguments are only examples. It is possible that a participant reaches a completely different conclusion using the same stage of reasoning:
1.Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because he will consequently be put in prison.
2.Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine, because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
3.Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine, because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband.
4.Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the law prohibits stealing making it illegal.
5.Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.
6.Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant. ”
Now the newer version of this model adds 7th stage trying to enhance the exploration on how people develop their cognition system. Its content is not important here because above six already make me dizzy. Should we really need to define our position based on these stages in advance of our communication like what we do to solve the equations? If we should, then how? Only thinking about the possible combination of these stages will make me regret to be born.
Before I am driven crazy by this weird theory, I want to say it may help to explain why people have different opinions on same topic. Further more, even you agree with somebody, it is still possible that you two draw your conclusions based on different assumptions, in other words, you are talking on different so called stages. One step further, as mentioned in the article, “It is possible that a participant reaches a completely different conclusion using the same stage of reasoning.” Even worse, in order to gather whatever can be used to fight, people unconsciously bounce up and down crossing stages (I forget that most of us even don’t know that such stupid stages exist), the result is that we already forget what really triggered this talk and we are losing the focus now. So what’s the point to argue? The simplest scenario, at specific stage, as long as the logical reasoning used to reach the destination holds, how can the conclusion be beated? Of course both sides can always involve moral, ethics, and law, which can easily mess up the situation immediately, to back up their argument, but the problem is how they make sure they are using the same version of those bibles? Not to say everyone believes his version is the original.
In most cases I can’t see the end of this war unless somebody lowers his stage or somebody is strong enough to brainwash his rival. Can anybody tell me which one could be easier? None of them I guess. So what is my point? Stop speaking? That is too pessimistic. How about this, say whatever you want to, but never expect it is heard.
Following is quoted from “Kohlberg's stages of moral development” from Wikipedia.com except the last three paragraphs.
“Heinz dilemma
A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe.
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife.
Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. The point of interest is the justification that the participant offers. Below are examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages. It is important to keep in mind that these arguments are only examples. It is possible that a participant reaches a completely different conclusion using the same stage of reasoning:
1.Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because he will consequently be put in prison.
2.Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine, because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
3.Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine, because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband.
4.Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the law prohibits stealing making it illegal.
5.Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.
6.Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant. ”
Now the newer version of this model adds 7th stage trying to enhance the exploration on how people develop their cognition system. Its content is not important here because above six already make me dizzy. Should we really need to define our position based on these stages in advance of our communication like what we do to solve the equations? If we should, then how? Only thinking about the possible combination of these stages will make me regret to be born.
Before I am driven crazy by this weird theory, I want to say it may help to explain why people have different opinions on same topic. Further more, even you agree with somebody, it is still possible that you two draw your conclusions based on different assumptions, in other words, you are talking on different so called stages. One step further, as mentioned in the article, “It is possible that a participant reaches a completely different conclusion using the same stage of reasoning.” Even worse, in order to gather whatever can be used to fight, people unconsciously bounce up and down crossing stages (I forget that most of us even don’t know that such stupid stages exist), the result is that we already forget what really triggered this talk and we are losing the focus now. So what’s the point to argue? The simplest scenario, at specific stage, as long as the logical reasoning used to reach the destination holds, how can the conclusion be beated? Of course both sides can always involve moral, ethics, and law, which can easily mess up the situation immediately, to back up their argument, but the problem is how they make sure they are using the same version of those bibles? Not to say everyone believes his version is the original.
In most cases I can’t see the end of this war unless somebody lowers his stage or somebody is strong enough to brainwash his rival. Can anybody tell me which one could be easier? None of them I guess. So what is my point? Stop speaking? That is too pessimistic. How about this, say whatever you want to, but never expect it is heard.
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
