One of the best-known of Kohlberg’s (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived somewhere in Europe.
Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this was much more than the Heinz could afford.
Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later.
The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemist’s and stole the drug.
Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
to answer that seriously the chemist forfitted that right when upon being approached on a human level with the story of the mans need he didn’t honour his duty to care for his fellow man. And by breaking the social code so severely he gave up it’s protection
Wait what
Bourgeois chemist scum
obviously theft is permitted if it is for the preservation of life that’s a no brainer
But what about the chemist’s right to a profit? Why do you hate free enterprise and small businesses?
to answer that seriously the chemist forfitted that right when upon being approached on a human level with the story of the mans need he didn’t honour his duty to care for his fellow man. And by breaking the social code so severely he gave up it’s protection
You’d be shocked how many apparent zombies there are running around with no brain.
Ohhh this thing!