Decide how each of the following individuals might respond to the Heinz dilemma and identify which stage of reasoning it might be.
Laia, an adult, responds, "It's not okay, but it's understandable. There was good enough reason because someone's life was at stake. It was a dire situation. Someone's life is more important, and their right to life is more important than the drug company getting their money. That person's right to life goes above the law; it's higher than the other. Although he loves his wife, there are also other things involved: she is a person and she has a right to life."
Laia says that the most important decision is to save someone's life regardless of the rights of the pharmacist to get paid. Breaking the law is not a concern for Laia.
Juwan, `4` years old, responds, "No, you should never steal, because they have to pay for it. It's not okay to steal the medicine or you'll go to jail."
Juwan's answer reflects that his decision is based on the fact that stealing is breaking the law.
Julián, a `17` years old, responds, "Heinz is acting out of a passion of love for his wife, so I think he should have done it. The seller didn't try to bargain with him. So I think it was right, well, not right, but I would have done it." When Julián is further questioned, "Is it ever right to steal?", he responds, "No, it's wrong, it's still stealing. So if the police catch him breaking into the store, then the police should take him to jail. But morally, he doesn't need to go to jail because he was doing the right thing, but stealing is stealing."
While Juwan's answer reflects compassion for Heinz's wanting to help his wife, he thinks that stealing is still wrong, and therefore the law must be upheld.