Heinz Dilemma

Somewhere in the world there is an epigram for every dilemma.
~ Hendrik Willem Van Loon

Sometimes in life, we are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to do something supposedly bad under normal circumstances in order to salvage a dire situation and restore positivity and order. Most of these times, we choose to go for it and commit the not so pleasant act, reasoning that the intention behind, and expected outcome of, such a commission is positive and involves good faith. This is, roughly, that part of the premises of ethics and morality where the concept of Heinz dilemma comes into the picture. Let's take a closer look at this case study before proceeding to discuss various ethical and moral aspects of it.

What is the Heinz Dilemma?

A dilemma is a situation wherein one needs to choose from two mutually exclusive, equally unfavorable courses of action as a solution to the issue at hand. Heinz dilemma is an example of ethical dilemma and it reflects a similar situation of choosing between the devil and the deep sea. Heinz is the name of the titular character of this case study on moral dilemma. Heinz's wife was suffering from a type of cancer and was fast approaching mortality. Around that time, a local druggist had discovered a kind of radium based drug which was touted by doctors as the only cure for the malady at that time. However, this druggist intended on commercializing his discovery and making as much money as he could by selling the drug at a price ($ 2000) which was ten times the cost ($ 200) of manufacturing it. Heinz knew this and went to everyone he knew to borrow money to pay for that drug in order to save his wife's life.

However, he could only get together $ 1000 which was just half of what the druggist charged. All his entreaties for being allowed to have the drug in return for paying the rest of the amount later fell on deaf ears. Hence, Heinz followed the adage desperate times call for desperate measures, broke into the druggist's shop and stole the drug. This is where the first and most significant of Heinz dilemma questions arise - should he or should he not have stolen the drug? To answer this, we must take a brief tour of Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

Kohlberg's Heinz Dilemma Vis-a-Vis Stages of Moral Development

This concept of ethics is often confused with Hobson's choice though both are not the same. Let's analyze the sanctity (or lack of it) of Heinz's action against the background of Kohlberg's six stages of moral development to get close to Heinz dilemma answers.

Stage #1 - Obedience and Punishment

There are two takes of this stage. The first approach says that Heinz should not have stolen the drug as it would get him imprisoned, making him a bad person in the eyes of the society. The second approach says that Heinz did nothing wrong as the druggist was overcharging him. The druggist wanted $2000 for a $200 worth medicine and when Heinz offered to pay him $1000, he was, anyway, ready to overpay. Besides, when Heinz broke in, he didn't steal any other object except the drug.

Stage #2 - Self Interest Orientation

This is all about self-centered priorities. If Heinz feels that saving his wife's life would make him happy even he has to serve prison term for it, then he would not see anything wrong with stealing the drug. On the other hand, Heinz would not steal the medicine as languishing in prison may seem a far more harrowing experience than mourning over his wife's dead body.

Stage #3 - Interpersonal Accord and Conformity

This stage deals with choosing between behaving in conformity with personal or social standards of ethics and morality. If he steals the drug and saves his wife, the latter would be grateful and consider him a good husband. However, society views stealing as a crime and he wouldn't want to come across as a criminal by stealing.

Stage #4 - Law and Social Order

This is about acting with full knowledge of legal consequences of one's actions. Heinz can either obey law and not steal or he may steal and accept the punishment as prescribed by law for stealing, irrespective of intentions for doing so.

Stage #5 - Right to Life and Compensation

Under this stage, Heinz's action may be justified saying that every human being has a right to live and the value of life is way above law, that it should be saved if possible. On the other hand, the right to remuneration for labor justifies the druggist's dismay by stating that the discoverer has a right to fair compensation and by stealing the druggist's formula, Heinz has violated this right.

Stage #6 - Universal Principles of Human Ethics

This stage argues the validity of a human life above the rights to property. On the other hand, it also argues the fact that others may also be in desperate need of the same property and may be in a position to pay for it. Therefore, by stealing it, Heinz may have denied both the discoverer of his fair compensation and another party of the benefits of that drug.

The above examples serve to show us that every coin has two sides and every decision or course of action has two approaches. Which approach you opt for depends as much upon the moral opportunity cost incurred by foregoing the consequences that would have arisen had the alternative approach been taken as upon the gravity of the situation at hand. The trick is to balance your decision between complete selfishness and unconditional altruism.