Morality is an interesting thing, and is often determined by the eye of the beholder. For instance, Ham, there are many things you would never do in the name of the god-money. But, what wouldn't you do to protect your children??? See, I'm thinking that table can get turned around real quick, depending upon the circumstances.
Which brings me to another thought. In TWI "good intentions" were never good enough. Road paved to hell and all. But is that the case with God or does God not look upon the heart? Now, I think good intentions mean a lot!
A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe.[5]
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?[5]
From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response.[7] Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:[5][15]
Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he would consequently be put in prison, which would mean he is a bad person. Or: Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200, not how much the druggist wanted for it. Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.
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. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would probably experience anguish over a jail cell more than his wife's death.
Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband. Or: Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he tried to do everything he could without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.
Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal. Or: Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.
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. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.
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.
if nothing else, it seems that the morality of scripture, research and life is neither absolute nor static...but more musical and gardenlike.
Hi SirG! I was thinking of that when I was posting, but couldn't remember what it was called. My mom asked me those questions when I was a kid and she was in college.
We could go through a sequence of scenarios that places the focus on the druggist, as well. For example: 1.)The druggist should not budge on the price because he can do as he wishes with something that is his. 2.)The druggist should be flexible to the situation, in the spirit of benevolence......etc., etc.
is it a moral use of your time to be worried about a hypothetical person ?
the kinds of crimes we see around us everyday, taking bribes, improper weights and balances, lack of charity to the poor, indifference to the plight of the debtor. Injustice is sacrilege,
You see at least a few of those in the hypothetical druggist, I really dont know where my place would be to enforce his lack of morality or what it is in general --if anything--although if death were imminent and there were no other way, I would steal the drug necessary to save her life. Im not sure what category that it would be in--nor really do I care--it would be an innate drive.
Interesting initial points on morality though. Im not the most upstanding person on the world by along shot but few things torque me more than organizations like TWI that throw all sense of morality to the wind because they are 'the called'and they are somehow exempt from common decency. I dont know how many times I have heard 'the law was not made for a righteous man'used as alicense for people to do whatever they wanted
I think he should have stolen the drug, sold it on the black market, used the money to put he and his wife through the PLAF class and then enacted the law of believing to receive deliverance.
In wayworld that would already have been categorized as 'believing', to steal the drugs to make enough $$ to take the class.
Reminds me when I took the advanced class and went wow. In my way poverty I was counselled to ask people for money, so I basically panhandled my friends and acquaintances until I had enough to go
There was no 'believing', faith and certainly not morality involved although I thought there was at the time. It was just a combination of manipulation and coercion with a spiritual veneer.
is it a moral use of your time to be worried about a hypothetical person ?
She is hypothetical? So, that means there is no Heinz or a mean and greedy pharmacist? That was a waste of worry....is it moral to make me worry over her! I am just kidding. However, this hypothetical with Heinz is often translated into reality and dealt with in our courts. I think our justice system can be immoral.
John was paying his way through college when he met his wife. After graduation, they married and had two daughters. Brittany, John's oldest daughter, was entering middle school when she developed a tumor on her esophagus. Doctors performed a series of surgeries but the tumor continued to grow around Brittany's vocal cords, forcing John and his family to consider removing them and rendering their daughter mute. They rejected this procedure and continued to battle the tumor with more surgeries, including one that attempted to rebuild her damaged throat, which proved unsuccessful.
The extreme financial pressure to pay for Brittany's medical bills and necessary antibiotics was increasing. John was the manager of a Texas dollar store at the time. A criminal informant (CI) approached him about buying multiple cases of pseudoephedrine, a decongestant. The store had a surplus of pseudoephedrine in storage and John agreed. He sold the CI 55 cases of pseudoephedrine on July 31, 2002 for $600 plus an additional $100 payment that John kept. On August 23, 2002, John sold another 92 cases to the CI for $1,200.
John was never charged with possessing methamphetamine, running a methamphetamine laboratory or earning money from the sale of the drug. His crime was selling pseudoephedrine, a precursor chemical to methamphetamine as well as a common sinus medication. However, John was held accountable for over 25,000 kilograms of marijuana (converted from a methamphetamine equivalency for sentencing purposes), as well as all of the actions of members in the drug conspiracy.
John had no prior convictions and had accepted responsibility for his part in the offense. He pled guilty to the charges, believing he would be sentenced to a maximum term of two years. At sentencing, John was stunned to learn he would be spending almost a decade behind bars under the sentencing guidelines.
Two of John's codefendants have already been released. John's family is not often able to visit him because of the distance between their home and his prison. His daughter Brittany now has a permanent tracheostomy—a surgical opening in her throat that allows her to breathe and emit liquids. Her tumor remains a serious concern. John's incarceration has taken an irreparable toll on his wife and daughters, emotionally and economically.
His crime was selling pseudoephedrine, a precursor chemical to methamphetamine as well as a common sinus medication.
I understand his circumstances and feel for him, I do... but this is a very serious crime....Ive been in some of those sections of the country where Meth use is prevalant and it is an ugly ugly ugly problem.
This is not just stealing to meet a huge need of his, which if not totally forgivable would be at least understandable BUT it also is aiding in the creation of huge problems for other people and communities.
This is very serious sh!t these days--this was a real breach of judgment on his part in my opinion
However, John was held accountable for over 25,000 kilograms of marijuana (converted from a methamphetamine equivalency for sentencing purposes), as well as all of the actions of members in the drug conspiracy.
I totally disagree with the concept of sentencing based on legislation and not by the will of a judge or jury. Each case should be judged on its own merits and demerits and sentences should be passed according to the evidence on each individual case.
There's a third element that I have serious moral reservation about in that story....HE WAS APPROACHED by a criminal informant..
I know he sold the PE, but would he have if he wasnt coerced into it? Would a crime ever have been committed if it weren't set up by authorities for it to happen and them to get their subsequent arrest?
It all sounds like entrapment to me.
Whatever agency set up the buy would do their community a lot better to catch criminals instead of making criminals in my book.
Thats a sad story. I have alot of opinions on it but its very complex and difficult to discern where real justice would be.
I would have liked to have been on the jury and heard everything on that case....
I hope he has some advocates, it sounds like he needs them
I understand his circumstances and feel for him, I do... but this is a very serious crime....Ive been in some of those sections of the country where Meth use is prevalant and it is an ugly ugly ugly problem.
This is not just stealing to meet a huge need of his, which if not totally forgivable would be at least understandable BUT it also is aiding in the creation of huge problems for other people and communities.
This is very serious sh!t these days--this was a real breach of judgment on his part in my opinion
I totally disagree with the concept of sentencing based on legislation and not by the will of a judge or jury. Each case should be judged on its own merits and demerits and sentences should be passed according to the evidence on each individual case.
There's a third element that I have serious moral reservation about in that story....HE WAS APPROACHED by a criminal informant..
I know he sold the PE, but would he have if he wasnt coerced into it? Would a crime ever have been committed if it weren't set up by authorities for it to happen and them to get their subsequent arrest?
It all sounds like entrapment to me.
Whatever agency set up the buy would do their community a lot better to catch criminals instead of making criminals in my book.
Thats a sad story. I have alot of opinions on it but its very complex and difficult to discern where real justice would be.
I would have liked to have been on the jury and heard everything on that case....
I hope he has some advocates, it sounds like he needs them
Yes, it is a true story and yes, what he did was absolutely wrong, but does the punishment fit the circumstances surrounding the crime? Those are the moral questions.....people with sick children can be pretty desperate. The sentencing followed the Feds minimum sentencing guidelines(which have since been rewritten and reduced). You raise many of the moral issues surrounding his crime. It really is loaded with questions. Another thing to factor in, is the availability of good health care for the under insured. Obviously he was struggling to meet the demands of treating his daughters illness. Is it moral that things are so costly, people can lose everything just to survive an illness? How much do those drugs really cost to make...how much of the price is profit? So many layers and factors.
Yes, questions of morality really can be complex!!
I think of Jesus with the woman caught in adultery....according to the law...she should have been stoned to death. That was the punishment. When they threw her before Jesus.....it would have been justice according to the law...for Him to allow her to be stoned....yet, he didn't pick up a stone. He took into account the morality of the situation. The woman was no worse than any of them standing there trying to pass judgment. I think there are grades and shades....of morality. If that makes sense. Something can seem moral...and still not be right.
To Add: I don't think the woman's accusers were there...so that adds another layer in that story. Forgot about that.
Another thing to factor in, is the availability of good health care for the under insured. Obviously he was struggling to meet the demands of treating his daughters illness. Is it moral that things are so costly, people can lose everything just to survive an illness?
I guess thats the big political debate these days. Personally to me it is reprehensible that in this country people have to do without healthcare yet there are others that seem to think that you must be able to afford what you are charged no matter how astronomical or its just plain too bad for you.
In my book Life>Money...anyones life > my money... but not everyone sees it that way, to some it is the other way around where their money>life...
I dont know how they come up with that moral argument
Recommended Posts
Ham
Morality might be the very reason I will die with lack of fame, and wealth.. maybe even unemployed and homeless..
there are some things, I would not do, no matter what the money promises..
sorry if this isn't the kind of reply that you might be looking for..
morality.. now that I've calmed down, and have a few serious thoughts..
maybe its a matter of one's morals owning oneself, and not the other way around..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Good stuff their buddy, well said, thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Morality is an interesting thing, and is often determined by the eye of the beholder. For instance, Ham, there are many things you would never do in the name of the god-money. But, what wouldn't you do to protect your children??? See, I'm thinking that table can get turned around real quick, depending upon the circumstances.
Which brings me to another thought. In TWI "good intentions" were never good enough. Road paved to hell and all. But is that the case with God or does God not look upon the heart? Now, I think good intentions mean a lot!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
maybe compare Fowler's stages of faith development with Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
if nothing else, it seems that the morality of scripture, research and life is neither absolute nor static...but more musical and gardenlike.
we are angels on ladders in dreams.
a perfect wild mess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Hi SirG! I was thinking of that when I was posting, but couldn't remember what it was called. My mom asked me those questions when I was a kid and she was in college.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
We could go through a sequence of scenarios that places the focus on the druggist, as well. For example: 1.)The druggist should not budge on the price because he can do as he wishes with something that is his. 2.)The druggist should be flexible to the situation, in the spirit of benevolence......etc., etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Did the drug save the wife? Just still worried about her. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
is it a moral use of your time to be worried about a hypothetical person ?
You see at least a few of those in the hypothetical druggist, I really dont know where my place would be to enforce his lack of morality or what it is in general --if anything--although if death were imminent and there were no other way, I would steal the drug necessary to save her life. Im not sure what category that it would be in--nor really do I care--it would be an innate drive.
Interesting initial points on morality though. Im not the most upstanding person on the world by along shot but few things torque me more than organizations like TWI that throw all sense of morality to the wind because they are 'the called'and they are somehow exempt from common decency. I dont know how many times I have heard 'the law was not made for a righteous man'used as alicense for people to do whatever they wanted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think he should have stolen the drug, sold it on the black market, used the money to put he and his wife through the PLAF class and then enacted the law of believing to receive deliverance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
In wayworld that would already have been categorized as 'believing', to steal the drugs to make enough $$ to take the class.
Reminds me when I took the advanced class and went wow. In my way poverty I was counselled to ask people for money, so I basically panhandled my friends and acquaintances until I had enough to go
There was no 'believing', faith and certainly not morality involved although I thought there was at the time. It was just a combination of manipulation and coercion with a spiritual veneer.
Makes me sick now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
She is hypothetical? So, that means there is no Heinz or a mean and greedy pharmacist? That was a waste of worry....is it moral to make me worry over her! I am just kidding. However, this hypothetical with Heinz is often translated into reality and dealt with in our courts. I think our justice system can be immoral.
http://www.famm.org/...
John was paying his way through college when he met his wife. After graduation, they married and had two daughters. Brittany, John's oldest daughter, was entering middle school when she developed a tumor on her esophagus. Doctors performed a series of surgeries but the tumor continued to grow around Brittany's vocal cords, forcing John and his family to consider removing them and rendering their daughter mute. They rejected this procedure and continued to battle the tumor with more surgeries, including one that attempted to rebuild her damaged throat, which proved unsuccessful.
The extreme financial pressure to pay for Brittany's medical bills and necessary antibiotics was increasing. John was the manager of a Texas dollar store at the time. A criminal informant (CI) approached him about buying multiple cases of pseudoephedrine, a decongestant. The store had a surplus of pseudoephedrine in storage and John agreed. He sold the CI 55 cases of pseudoephedrine on July 31, 2002 for $600 plus an additional $100 payment that John kept. On August 23, 2002, John sold another 92 cases to the CI for $1,200.
John was never charged with possessing methamphetamine, running a methamphetamine laboratory or earning money from the sale of the drug. His crime was selling pseudoephedrine, a precursor chemical to methamphetamine as well as a common sinus medication. However, John was held accountable for over 25,000 kilograms of marijuana (converted from a methamphetamine equivalency for sentencing purposes), as well as all of the actions of members in the drug conspiracy.
John had no prior convictions and had accepted responsibility for his part in the offense. He pled guilty to the charges, believing he would be sentenced to a maximum term of two years. At sentencing, John was stunned to learn he would be spending almost a decade behind bars under the sentencing guidelines.
Two of John's codefendants have already been released. John's family is not often able to visit him because of the distance between their home and his prison. His daughter Brittany now has a permanent tracheostomy—a surgical opening in her throat that allows her to breathe and emit liquids. Her tumor remains a serious concern. John's incarceration has taken an irreparable toll on his wife and daughters, emotionally and economically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Is that a true story?
That story is loaded --
I understand his circumstances and feel for him, I do... but this is a very serious crime....Ive been in some of those sections of the country where Meth use is prevalant and it is an ugly ugly ugly problem.
This is not just stealing to meet a huge need of his, which if not totally forgivable would be at least understandable BUT it also is aiding in the creation of huge problems for other people and communities.
This is very serious sh!t these days--this was a real breach of judgment on his part in my opinion
I totally disagree with the concept of sentencing based on legislation and not by the will of a judge or jury. Each case should be judged on its own merits and demerits and sentences should be passed according to the evidence on each individual case.
There's a third element that I have serious moral reservation about in that story....HE WAS APPROACHED by a criminal informant..
I know he sold the PE, but would he have if he wasnt coerced into it? Would a crime ever have been committed if it weren't set up by authorities for it to happen and them to get their subsequent arrest?
It all sounds like entrapment to me.
Whatever agency set up the buy would do their community a lot better to catch criminals instead of making criminals in my book.
Thats a sad story. I have alot of opinions on it but its very complex and difficult to discern where real justice would be.
I would have liked to have been on the jury and heard everything on that case....
I hope he has some advocates, it sounds like he needs them
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Yes, it is a true story and yes, what he did was absolutely wrong, but does the punishment fit the circumstances surrounding the crime? Those are the moral questions.....people with sick children can be pretty desperate. The sentencing followed the Feds minimum sentencing guidelines(which have since been rewritten and reduced). You raise many of the moral issues surrounding his crime. It really is loaded with questions. Another thing to factor in, is the availability of good health care for the under insured. Obviously he was struggling to meet the demands of treating his daughters illness. Is it moral that things are so costly, people can lose everything just to survive an illness? How much do those drugs really cost to make...how much of the price is profit? So many layers and factors.
Yes, questions of morality really can be complex!!
I think of Jesus with the woman caught in adultery....according to the law...she should have been stoned to death. That was the punishment. When they threw her before Jesus.....it would have been justice according to the law...for Him to allow her to be stoned....yet, he didn't pick up a stone. He took into account the morality of the situation. The woman was no worse than any of them standing there trying to pass judgment. I think there are grades and shades....of morality. If that makes sense. Something can seem moral...and still not be right.
To Add: I don't think the woman's accusers were there...so that adds another layer in that story. Forgot about that.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I guess thats the big political debate these days. Personally to me it is reprehensible that in this country people have to do without healthcare yet there are others that seem to think that you must be able to afford what you are charged no matter how astronomical or its just plain too bad for you.
In my book Life>Money...anyones life > my money... but not everyone sees it that way, to some it is the other way around where their money>life...
I dont know how they come up with that moral argument
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Me too....I see it the same way.
What gets me...is when they use God to justify that moral argument. I am pretty easy going in real life.....but that one...makes me see red.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
What really baffles me is that I HAVE heard that argument from people that are also vehemently "Pro-life" :o ....
...It makes my brain hurt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.