Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

Lawrence Kohlberg 131
and students while implementing his ideas of “just communities”: a democratic school where
each person—whether student or staff member—had one vote in deciding school policies. Just
communities differ from conventional American high schools and classrooms by providing
students with a sense of belonging to a group that is responsive to individual concerns, while also
having clearly defined group goals and commitments.
Scholars from around the country and the world converged around Kohlberg, and he was able
to generate both great excitement and controversy. He strongly opposed the claim that psychology
was a value-neutral social science and his determination to talk about moral values never ceased.
While doing cross-cultural work in Belize in 1971, Kohlberg contracted a parasitic infection,
which made him live with increasing pain during the last 16 years of his life. While on a day
pass from a local hospital on January 19, 1987, Kohlberg drove to Winthrop, parked his car on a
dead-end street, and plunged into the cold winter sea. He was 59 years old.
HEINZ’S DILEMMA
Imagine the following situation as we begin to reflect on Kohlberg’s contributions to psychology
and how they relate to postformal thinking:
A woman was near death from a unique kind of cancer. There is a drug that might save her. The drug costs
$4,000 per dosage. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and
tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000. He asked the doctor-scientist who
discovered the drug for a discount or let him pay later. But the doctor-scientist refused. Should Heinz break
into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
To steal or not to steal, what a dilemma! Let us approach to this fictitious scenario and try to
articulate a line of thought. The first idea that might come to your mind is that Mr. Heinz should
not steal because, if he is caught, he will be sent to prison. But, after some careful consideration,
you may also arrive to the conclusions that if he doesn’t, maybe his wife would die, and that that
would really make him feel sad and guilty. So, maybe you want to reconsider your initial position
and admit the possibility that, perhaps, he should steal.
Even more, let’s assume that, as is natural, his wife really wants to live, so you are thinking
that he should do something to get that medicine, that is, to steal it. But, again, doubt assaults you
and makes you think that, perhaps, it is not what he should do. After all, stealing is against the
law, and you and Mr. Heinz know that that is true regardless of what all of you might be feeling,
needing, and wanting.
But, as you walk back and forth through the scenario, you have probably realized that what
Mr. and Mrs. Heinz need and really want is not a drug, but to preserve Mrs. Heinz’s right to live.
So, now you might be backing up again and thinking that he should steal. Without doubt, her
right to live should be considered the most important thing at this moment. Nevertheless, again,
like a pendulum, you might be reconsidering your thoughts because you have also come to the
realization that the scientist also has a right to be compensated. So you are again concluding that
he should not steal.
In the back of your mind resounds the scientist-doctor’s refusal to accept Mr. Heinz’s partial
payment and promise to pay the balance. So, you could be thinking that he should steal because
saving a human life is more important than preserving the scientist’s right to private property. But
almost at the same time, you can already see that pendulum coming back and knocking down
your thoughts because honesty, respect, and the dignity that comes with them are as important to
you. So maybe your conclusion at this point is that he should not steal.