Kohlberg’s 6 Stages of Moral Development 

Help us to reach more teachers to learn about morality: patreon.com/sprouts

1- Avoiding Punishment 2- Seeking interest 3- Societal conformity 4- Maintaining the social order 5- Social contract 6- Ethics are paramount, and laws change to serve it.

So Heinz casually forgot about his baked bean and ketchup company?

At 0:46, Fin's fear of punishment isn't from the teacher; Fin's fear of punishment is from getting his ass kicked by the ninth graders!

POV: you're watching this video because of ETHICS

Pov: your psychology teacher is making u watch this

My answer to the question at the end: Breaking the law to save a life is justified, and almost any judge would dismiss the case for extenuating circumstances. But even if that were not the case, if the man could have saved his wife's life, or a complete stranger, it would still be a noble act for him to be willing to go to jail for stealing the drug, putting others' needs above his own. As for the pharmacist, I wouldn't send him to jail either. While I do believe that he has a MORAL obligation to help the man's wife (if not by giving the drug freely or at a reduced price, then at least agreeing to some kind of installment plan), he doesn't have any LEGAL obligation to help her. It's just like if I see someone drowning, I'm morally obligated to do save them, but not legally obligated. It's not the job of the police to force us to be good people, just to prevent us from directly infringing upon each others' freedoms. So for that reason, the pharmacist shouldn't be arrested, but should be held accountable in other ways, such as future customers taking their business elsewhere.

My kid's psychologist told me my daughter's sense of conscience was more fully developed than my ex's. This is super interesting.

sometimes you have to do the wrong thing for the right reasons and apologise afterwards. help those that cannot help themselves.

I remember being bullied and not being able to fight back because I was taught violence is bad and didn't want to be punished or didn't want my mother to know me beating up someone :(

I’m 26 , it took me 26 almost 27 years to understand this. As an adolescent child I knew helping others being bullied was right, as a teen I would question every rule my religious conservative family had. Disagree with most agreeing with very little. Now as an adult I understand we are all different and see life through different eyes and experiences , compassion and understanding is the core of justice and to understand your fellow human as a human is what will stop you from inflicting more pain on the world.

This is the first time I've heard about these stages of moral development and the Heinz Dilemma. As I was watching the video I noticed that I was repulsed by the pharmacist's unwillingness to help the Heinz's dying wife. Heinz breaking into the pharmacy to steal the drug to save his wife was admirable. I think his actions were justified considering he was saving his wife's life. I also think the situation changes depending on whether the sick person was his wife or a stranger, though it shouldn't really. I think that a life is a life and how do we measure the value of a life compared to that of another? Here's a question, though: how would the situation change if the wife's condition was such that giving her the drug would save her life but only prolong her pain and suffering? Then, perhaps, the pharmacist wouldn't be such a bad guy in the story. Do I think pharmacists should be arrested for selling life-saving drugs at 10x the manufacturing price? Hell yes.

In response to the moral dilemma at the end, I would suggest trying another pharmacy. UPDATE Many people have pointed out that the dilemma said the drug was not available elsewhere. I missed that at first. However, that is because the dilemma is now completely implausible and unrealistic. Drug stores do not make unique pharmaceuticals. I thought of other bizarre aspects of the scenario too. It is not usable today. Perhaps more important, this experience underlines how far we usually go to avoid getting boxed into dilemmas like this.

POV: you have an exam in 2 hours and you're gonna fail Edit: yeah I definitely failed that one

The husband is legally unjustified but morally justified. He committed the act of theft but rescued his dying wife. The pharmacist is the opposite; he is legally justified and morally unjustified. He cannot be forced to sell his product cheaper, but he could’ve set up a payment plan to make it affordable. I feel like the best solution is to have the government negotiate drug prices to make it affordable. No single individual can change anything, but collectively our voices for better healthcare will be heard. ⚕️My stage is 5: Social Contract. The laws should be enforced, but I understand laws can be poorly designed. Getting politically involved and advocating your rights is the best pathway forward.

It's a rule-of-law test. The scenario (at the end of the video, btw) provides a set moral questions that suggest (imply, whatever) that a system of rules cannot always provide a moral (principled, whatever) outcome to every interpersonal conflict in a society, which is true (btw). The answer you give to these questions is going to reflect your personal values. Obviously, you (or, any given person) want to respect the law. However, if the rules of law, which is simple system of rules trying to resolve a complex set of circumstances that occur in your (or, any given) society, fail to provide a moral or principled outcome in a given scenario, the correct thing to do is reevaluate the law, or the application of the law, and make corrections or realignments so that the desired outcome occurs. Of course, not everyone will have the same desired outcome. So, if a person ranks their principals so that the preservation of life supersedes the protection of property (perhaps in every situation, but not necessarily), they'll find a way to justify taking the drug away from the pharmacist (by whatever means) and saving Mrs. Heinz (who should have a enough money to buy the drug in the first place because they sure seem to sell a lot of ketchup, but whatever). Regardless of how you answer these questions, if the answers you give result in the preservation of life over property, then you obviously value life over property (or the concept of personal property). Which, I suppose, is the point of the questions. You can make more of a drug, and you can resolve a personal property dispute after the fact with some sort of just outcome, but you cannot restore a life lost to decision based on a set of rules that fail to resolve a complex scenario unforeseen by the author(s) of the rules. If you don't have confidence in the answers you give these questions (which I expect is pretty common), it's probably because you are having a hard time resolving the conflict between your principals; respect for an individual's choice of how they conduct their business and deal with their property (the pharmacist), or the preservation of one person's life over the liberty of another's. Some would find this an easy choice, and some would not. Also, the amount of time you have to think about your answers and/or your values may matter. So, if you read this far, maybe you want my answer. I have to assume that Mrs. Heinz (or whoever) has a fixed amount of time to live and that immediate action is the only way to save her (or them: I think they made that clear in the video, but a time constraint is an important condition that has to be true, so I want to state my assumption here). Also, I'm assuming the pharmacist actually made the drug and is not just selling someone else's product. This matters to the question of the pharmacist's actions and responsibilities. The answer (based on my values) is to steal the drug, save the wife (or even a stranger), turn myself (Mr. Heinz) in to the authorities, and deal the consequences, which include paying for the drug after the fact. In case you're thinking it, yes, I'm aware that someone, somewhere, is probably dying of a treatable medical condition right now. The context of this story is what I'm talking about here, so, no, I'm not going to go hunt for a situation so I can rob a pharmacist and save someone's life. I'm just responding to the situation given, and, yes, I'm going to have a different answer for a different situation. Whatever choice I make in any given situation is personal and does not act as a baseline for my opinion of what others choose to do (the pharmacist, for instance). That said, it's absurd (and immoral) to withhold a replicable drug in a situation where a life can be saved and compensation can be resolved later. But, as we all know, this does happen. If I were the pharmacist, I would probably have a different business model that wouldn't result in the situation given. I'd probably not be in business for very long either. However, I do not believe the pharmacist in the above scenario is a murderer for withholding a drug that he can make but demands compensation for. Regardless of how you change the scenario, I'm going to put the value of life over the certain liberties of an individual because that's how I rank my values. Different scenarios will yield different variations on the same theme or outcome, but my values will always place the the right of an individual in immediate peril to live or survive over the right of another individual to retain or acquire wealth at the expense of another. So, it doesn't matter how you change the scenario, how I change my answer will be based on these values. tl;dr: of course I'd steal the drug, it wouldn't matter if I loved my wife, It wouldn't matter if it was a stranger, and I don't think the pharmacist should be charged with murder.

Level 7: Let the world burn.

Hahaha studying for my child psychology exams and reading comments here is like 😂😂😂😂😂

The first scenario of the children fighting occurred when I was in 3rd grade. Two larger kids were viciously beating a smaller one, lying on the ground bloodied and screaming. I was horrified and wanted to stop the attack. The large crowd of other kids, however, were cheering and encouraging the attackers, like some kind of mob excited with blood lust. Where would their behavior fall on this spectrum? I felt helpless to do anything, and being a child could think of nothing, so I moved along home and told my mom. We got in the car and drove back by where it had happened, but it was all over by then. I learned everything I ever needed to know about human nature on that day.

Two things I want to add. One, to be careful of pit traps. Someone at moral development stage 1 and someone at moral development stage 3 shows the same reaction to what happened. It's good to carefully think things through. Two, it *seems* that the more morally developed someone is, the less they *seem* to respect the rules. Disobedience to rules does not immediately indicate moral development. Rules are needed as a vague guideline. A sign of moral development is how you could consider every factor without bias to concoct a solution that fits the situation. Basically not every solution fits every problem and never think that if you seem like the most morally developed person, no other opinion should be heard except yours.

Laws have been invented to enforce limits on behavior, primarily force and deceit, which can destroy relationships. The man faces a dilemma between two evils, letting his wife die and breaking a law that prohibits a behavior that, if it became generalized, could destroy society. Of course, he isn't thinking about that, not with his wife dying. It is we, as citizens, who must think about that. How far are we willing to allow the law to be flouted? If society collapsed, many people would suffer from the effects of looting, violence, and a lack of production of those things we need to live better lives. The only place that we are all forced to think seriously about these issues is a jury. But, when we let busy judges do all the work, we, as a population, do not develop the moral sense an advanced society needs in order to function ethically. Then, judges, who don't necessarily have a higher moral sense than the ordinary citizen, can start making decisions that society in general does not agree with, creating rifts between the law and a large sector of the general population. It's hard for us as individuals to judge at what moral level we are at. Our self interest and fears make our moral sense shift, depending on different circumstances, especially emotional ones. That's why an impartial jury is so important to keeping the use of public power ethical.

This is one of the most informative and knowledgeable youtube channel that I have watched

my parents were overprotective and this video helped me find a good description of some of the effects - i'm still stuck in the first phase of moral development

Steal the drug, cure the wife, turn yourself into the police. A jury would then be the judge of the situation, and hopefully the pharmacist would be punished for price gouging and putting human lives at risk. A pharmacist, as part of the medical community, is still bound by the Hippocratic oath, which he is in violation of in this scenario.

I appreciated the explanation. Interesting how the developers draw the audience in to continue the social experiment.

I love content like this where we are presented with different social theories or experiments. Love Sprouts for doing this. I am thankful to you that I am finally discovering content that I love.

Our morals develop all throughout our lifetime. True that the stages especially the last one may not always be completed. Most of the time too, we find ourselves going back and forth through the stages. It's the sign that we have not really firmly grasp the stages that we must have completed and the element of Choice and Values would always come into play. 😇🤓🤩 Thank you for sharing.😇😁🤓

Good thing I found this video! Someone shared their notes and it only included the levels, not the stages! Great breakdown and resource ❤

Love this channel’s work!

One of the important phrases: Kohlberg sought to confirm his theory. That's not how things are supposed to be done.

So clear cut explanation. Thank you

My initial thoughts on the questions at the end are: 1) No, he shouldn’t have broken in and stolen the medicine, because getting caught would make a bad situation even worse. And also it’s a blessing that a drug even exists that can save his wife’s life. The fact that it would benefit his wife doesn’t give him the right to steal it. And he’s not considering the cost on the pharmacist to repair any damage from the break-in. However if he got caught, considering the circumstances, I would believe he shouldn’t be charged, but let off with a warning and only charged if he breaks in again. 2) If he doesn’t love his wife then his reasons for stealing the drug are no longer obvious to me and I’d want to know why he stole it. Perhaps he’s just stealing it because he believes it’s the right thing to do, even though he’s not gaining anything personally from his wife recovering. But him stealing it even though he doesn’t love his wife doesn’t make it more or less morally acceptable to me. 3) If he was doing it for a random stranger it still doesn’t make it more or less morally acceptable to me. Again, I would wonder what his reasons were though. 4) No, the pharmacist shouldn’t be charged with murder as I’m assuming his motive for not giving the drug was because he wasn’t being paid his asking price. Not because he wanted the man’s wife to die, even if he knew that giving him the drug at half price would save her life. Unless it could be proven beyond resonable doubt that the reason he didn’t give Heinz the drug was because he knew Heinz’ wife would die and he wanted her dead. Although I don’t know what he should be charged with if that was the case. However, I think the pharmacist should seek to have an understanding of the significance of what his drug can mean to people and that lives can be saved or lost as a result of taking or not taking the drug. And he should put measures in place that help him stay profitable while being able to help the poor have access to his drug.

Still in awe of Kohlberg coming up with this. 🙌🙌🙌

Given the situation I'd say that although his intentions were good, his means of getting the medicine is obviously wrong. But then when we weigh things out there are much more good that's happening. For stealing he gets to cure his wife and he might go to jail (its up to a competent judge) but I guess he wont even regret it knowing he saved her life. It's still a better choice if there is no other choice.

Wow, this was super helpful in remembering these stages! Interesting and attention-capturing video.

So helpful! Studying for my aswb social work exam.

I believe all human beings have a right to make a demand on the compassion of human society for a relief of suffering. But human society is nowhere near that place where all people receive empathy and compassion equally. So I wonder to whom exactly are we supposed to submit justification to for such a belief.

It's sad how best content is seen by very few. These videos are like classis quality music. They are great but hardly seen and harshly noticed.

this video was easy to follow and i love the background music. thanks!

Channel's a pure gold.

It all depends on the decision the person makes and the situation he is in. Many rules can be... and since many people suffer injustice because of such rules, sometimes we have to take matters into our hands and do whatever we can to solve our own problems.

I'm new to this amazing platform. Your way of explaining the matter is commendable. May you soar higher and higher and impart knowledge like this. Keep up the good work.

It depends upon the type of situation we are in. At times, we keep our distance but sometimes we tend to intervene this or that way to break the fights.

Thankyou very much, make my study journey smoother ! love

Life is priceless So steal and save I'll deal with everything happens next

Thank you for sharing ♥️💗

Thank you, thank you for this great way to detail this out without confusion!

Very well explained. Thank you.

It depends how you view the world, how you answer, obviously. Ken Wilber has use Kohlberg and Spiral Dynamics among others to create a more detailed system. Enjoyed the video

Had a childhood friend who did jail time because her mom needed expensive treatment for cancer. She ran a travel agency and stole from her customers to pay for it, her reasons didn't matter. She went to jail and of course her mom died soon after without her caregiver. So damn sad!

really fantastic content and means of being explained.

Very helpful and the illustration used was spontaneous ❤❤

The answer is to begin a fundraiser for the Heinz family because his wife, the stranger or every human being deserves to live. Pharma firms should consider giving life saving medicine for free.

1 - Stealing when it is life itself that is at stake is justified as an emergency right. It's the same principles that a state would follow if a starving person broke into a mall in the middle of nowhere in order to feed himself. A society cannot rationally expect people to substitute survival, a natural high imperative with secondary legal regulations, so the way it is normally dealt with is that the person is indeed liable for the economic damages of their action and can expect to have to re-compensate in that field, but he should not expect a criminal charge at the end of it, though the price hike may or may not feature in that settlement. 2 - In good and bad days, in sickness and in health is my own take on it. It changes quite little unless the degrees and justifications reach a certain absurd point. Otherwise, there will be an established expectation of care. Same concept if one encounters a baby in the cold woods that is clearly abandoned. Leaving it to perish from exposure would constitute a criminal lack of care and it would matter quite little if one really hates babies. On the moral front, I suppose showing love to those one hate is a strong quality even if unnatural. 3 - Much from the above follows, though here there can also be justification of distance. I might see a report over a starving Sudanese village, I might have the means and the ability to change something about it, but still elect other priorities even if blatantly lesser and that would not be in and of itself criminal. If it is a random person in the street dying then yes you are required to at the bare minimum get them help. If it is a random person laying in your own bed? The same and you should probably some divorce paper with that. 4 - Secondary factors can be key there. Firstly what the law is. Secondly why were the prices hiked? Was it due to a lawful increase from the board or was it due to the salesman's personal dislike of the customer or his wife. Or perhaps something external like realities of inflation. Did the person have any belief that this customer was telling the truth or attempting to scam? Normally, it would not make it to court unless some circumstances are quite damning, not would there be reason to make an arrest there or then unless again the circumstances are entirely unlawful, which is different than immoral. Murder would barring extreme circumstances not be on the table as that involves taking life more than it involves letting die, or absence of care, unless the intent was personal and the price hike artificial there would be nothing justifying an attempted murder charge. Chances are regulations would probably be the natural way to handle such.

Learning ethics and watching this video, best combo ever

Extremely well done! Thank you!

Stage 7 : The Purge Stage 8 : Return to Stage 1

Like we used to say in the army... 'It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission' ... (if in doubt)

This video should be your 1ST STEP TO START UNDERSTANDING the Moral development theory of Kohlberg. Thank you!

Wow! Thank you so much for the simplicity of this video. Very interesting subject.

1. Hines did the right thing by stealing the drug. Even though it is illegal, and likely to result in punishment, it is the only way he can save his wife's life. 2. It wouldn't matter if he didn't love his wife, although he might be less likely to risk punishment if that is the case. Stealing the drug is still the right thing to do. 3. If it is a stranger, Hines might be more likely to consider it someone else's problem, and decide not to risk going to jail to save someone he doesn't know. No one would blame him for feeling this way. But if he chose to commit a crime to save the life of a stranger, he would be morally justified. 4. The druggist should not go to prison if the wife dies, though I would hope he would be wracked with guilt for the rest of his life.

This was a great explanation, thanks!

this was so confusing to me, no matter how much i revised. thankyou so much for such a beautiful story interpretation for easy understanding. Much appreciated.

The fact that a person on their deathbed cant afford life saving medication is the real crime here. All other actions are a result and therefore no punishment should befall them. The greedy drug manufacturers should however be taken to court and found guilty of some form of manslaughter and be sentenced to rot in jail for valuing currency over human life

I think he shouldn't be arrested for stealing the drug, I totally understand him and would've probably done the same thing... And yes, the person dying being someone he loves plays a huge role

Thanks for this video. Asking permission to share this with my classes.

Thank you so much! Helped Alot

Yes, I think the stealing of drug was right in this context, as he didn't hurt anybody (physically at least), and he had to save his wife. And yes, probably the situation might have been different if he didn't love his wife, then I think it would have depended on how much of a moral/social/ obligation or duty, he considers the saving of his wife to be, if he had a strong sense of duty, then surely he would still have tried all the means to get the drug to his wife. But I think love is a much stronger motivation, and without love, he would have definitely thought more about what the consequences could be of stealing, how much risk was there and so on. But, in general, I believe it was his duty to save the life of his wife, as the husband is the closest person to a wife, like a wife is to a husband, so, no matter anyone else do it or not, it is definitely the duty of husband to save his wife - especially knowing that it is a petty theft, and he is not doing anything endangering to anyone else's life. And yes, the situation would have been totally different if the person was not his wife, but some stranger. Then he would not have stolen the drug to help him, partly because we all know and believe that we can't help everybody, and even though it hurts, but people do suffer in this world. And part of me thinks that we should help those we can, but what that help entails - that is also to be considered. Now doing something which could land the person lending the help in trouble - it is something that would prevent people from helping a stranger, instead if it was helping like by buying the medicine for someone in need, then probably he should have helped, but stealing it - that is a predicament. And no, the druggist shouldn't be arrested because he wasn't doing anything illegal considering it was within his rights to control the price of the drug he was selling (which is not usually the case, but given the lack of information, we have to assume this). But seeing the problem, someone from authority (government) should intervene here, make the required drug available at affordable rates (like by subsidizing, or by developing alternatives to it), and/or make regulations to control the control the price of the drug, meaning something has to be done so that the apparently so much essential medicine reaches the patient - I mean we are talking about saving someone's life here.

First one since life is more valuable than anything. I will do anything to save someone I love.. don't know which stage i am though..

Thank you for this. Very interesting.

This was helpful for my NCE exam.

For the moral dilemma, I think sometimes you have to accept losses in your life. Try a fundraiser online to raise money if you are desperate enough but stealing would not be the way to go especially if the drug was SO expensive... someone will have to end up paying for that drug because nothing is free in this world, the man would probably get found out for stealing it otherwise how would his wife be alive if the ONLY way she could be saved is through that drug. He would have no record of purchasing that drug in the first place. He could easily be linked to stealing that specific drug as it would likely be one of the only incidents in the area of that drug being stolen. His buddies and even the doctors would also have been told by the man that he cannot afford the drug so everyone would automatically question (especially his buddies) how he got the drug in the first place. People would ask how his wife is alive and how he managed to afford the drug (which would require him to come up with a big lie to cover up- that is, assuming he does not get caught) The whole plan is scuffed because you can see the man grabbing the pill bottle from a broken glass cabinet with no gloves or anything, his fingerprints would be all over the place. How would he get into the pharmacy in the first place as well? BREAK AND ENTER! So now he not only will have a theft (possibly over 5000 depending how expensive the drug really was!) charge but he also has break and enter on his record. He might be able to save his wife from death but in the end he would also face jail time, and most likely fines for all the crimes he committed in doing so. Therefore, stealing the medicine would be the worst possible idea because he is not only very likely to get caught, he would also likely put himself in more financial trouble, probably face some jail time and he wouldn't be able to enjoy the time with his wife. He would also mentally beat himself up about it in his jail cell, thinking about how stupid of a decision it was to try to break into a pharmacy (which would also most likely have cameras giving a profile of the intruder), and steal an extremely expensive drug (deemed the ONLY way his wife could be saved), AND attempt to deliver the drugs to her without the advice of a medical professional (which leaves more room for delivery error but the doctors would probably notice anyways if she started taking the drug lol). In addition, I am assuming she was in the hospital being cared for by medical professionals if she was on her death bed... The man would likely not want to tell the doctors about obtaining the medicine... HOWEVER it just would not work because if she is under supervision the doctors would notice anything happening with her and if she was magically getting better or taking the medication lol.... That pharmacist kinda sucks, but there are sooo many places that up the prices on things, its ridiculous yes but it happens literally all the time... everywhere... If you arrested that pharmacist they should try going around and arresting all the others... we would have no more pharmacists left LOL! For the other options, Heinz is kind of made out to be a douchebag if he didn't love his dying wife... but if there is nothing you can do... there really is nothing you can do... it would be the same as the first option, sometimes you just have to accept losses if you have no other options or hope for a miracle. Why should Heinz care about a random stranger on their deathbed, people die everyday... sad but it is the truth and as important as it is to care and be moral if you set out to care for every person that is dying in the world you would never stop... Thoughts, anyone?

being a nerd and watching this before my class starts on this subject and laughing at all these comments.

Guys, I become addictive to your videos! ❤❤

What a great resource, @Sprouts

Very well explained. The first two stages are based on pure selfishness and self preservation. Very common even in adults. I think the teacher is duty bound to follow and enforce the rules and regulations. However I just wondered for how long these students had been left alone. The Social contract lady Jessy is very interesting, wonder why she never called attention to Toms behavior the day before when he punched the Grade 1 student?. Does Jessy know that nothing could have been done to Tom? Would she have been required to show evidence, which she may have felt would be too much of a bother? Hallo Law courts? Is this Theory taught in law school and especially to future Judges? For last case, Heinz was justified to break into the Pharmacy, since he felt desperate, had tried to his level best to get the medicine legally and hopefully saved the wife. However whether he will go to jail depends on the stage level of the Judge or members of the Jury. As for the drug store owner, he cannot go to jail for refusing to sell the medicine, since he seems to be in a capitalistic market where profits go as high as one can get away with. Perhaps someone should start a social media campaign which will be directed towards looking at how to reduce cost of life saving medication for the poor members of the society.

Pls ,make a video about "productivity"and how to achieve it

the explanation is so helpful.

Wish my high school had that kind of headmaster.

1: Should he have stolen the drug? I don't believe in existential "should". If he stole the medicine, and felt confident about the outcome he would face regardless of consequence, then I believe his actions would be well justified. 2: What if he didn't love his wife? I don't think that his wife's death by illness would be his fault if he did not steal because he did not love her. If he caused her sickness, then I would feel he is responsible for her death. 3: What if it was a stranger? I don't believe he would be responsible for stealing the drug for a stranger. If he somehow caused the illness in the stranger, then I believe he would be responsible. 4: Should the pharmacist be punished? If it's against the law to price gauge, then he definitely committed that offense. If it isn't against the law in this scenario, then I suppose he shouldn't be punished for it. I do think that price gauging is morally unjust. In my opinion, justification for one's actions is more important than social law on a individual basis. I think that justification is debatable with respect to validity, so some justifications are better than others. I don't think that law is inherently moral. It only represents the social contract. I believe that members of a society, and law makers should make laws based on the valid justifications made in that society. I think justification should be based on evidence of need/importance of the action, and fairness rather than majority rule.

As I’m subscriber of this channel from a long time and I want to take time to say that Your videos are really helpful and informative. Also want to give some feedback. Talking about the videos. This channel has its own style to storytelling in form of videos. I feel its lacking one very important thing: motion. Or say some animation. Each point in a video is said by conveying through drawing some elements in a slide. It feels very slow and unnatural. Just an opinion. This style definitely works but it lacks some connection. The reason I’m telling is over the time I have seen many similar channels using animation as a tool for videos which makes connection really quickly and also its fun to see. Anyways your videos has helped me a lot. Thank you!

Nice one.Ethical development is paramount, especially in today's world where life ethics is dieing. That's why I specialized on ethics on my channel.

Excellent explaination and accent...perfect

He should move to Canada and get the medication free.

I just had an exam on this on Wednesday !

I want to become a teacher, i just discovered this chanel and I'm so glad I did, it's so interesting ! Thank you !

I like to watch contents like this which provoke my thoughts. and more than that after watching the video I go through the comment section to find out how others are thinking and where am I stayin. how far is the gap and how much is the morality and ethical difference between the society and me. But one difference is that I am from South India (kerala), which I consider compared to other states keeps higher standards in morality and ethics. My society is growing except the religious chaos. I always compare myself with my society and the comment section of European society, which is the only way of comparison to other countries possible for me. Well, I find myself getting improvement. Hope one day all these religious chaos will end and we will also rise 😊

Don't arrest him but blast that pharmacist on social media. That's one in instance where the cancel culture on Twitter might actually be useful, pressuring him into selling for a lower price.

1. The guy stole the drug, would I do the same? Yes, because survival is a basic human instinct. 2. Would I break a law or go out of my way to help others? Even people I don't like? Yes, because for moral justice to exist it must be enforced across all levels of society. So no, it doesn't change the situation even if the thief didn't love his wife but still stole the medicine for her. 3. Same answer as two. Who it is doesn't matter. 4. From a society standpoint, individual rights allow the Pharmacist to make any price. However, this shows that society is wrong because it allows exploitation of those financial suffering. Society's laws are to blame for this and as a result, should make amends by changing the law to prevent further injustices from occurring. The thief should still be punished, however, the severity should be the absolute minimum established by the laws or an alternative punishment should be established. The Pharmacist although a victim of a crime is not morally right, only legally and the thief is morally right but legally wrong.

thanks it helped to understand Kohlberg's Moral Devlopment theory very interestingly 😃

Life's decisions are often difficult and seldom as simple as they may seem. It always brings me to - what if...

School needs to teach youth about this

Thanks for this content 👍

Just to let Sprouts know - I appreciate how beautiful the art is :)

The man should organise a campaign, so others can help.

Excellent! Succinct, informative, entertaining. I think it is perfectly okay for Heinz to steal the drug. The right to life is more important than the right to property.

Made to watch in school

I remember a variant of the pharmacy in the videogame Okamiden, in which a kid steals medicine to help his mother. The doctor (Bluebeard, if I recall) appears to take the medicine back but after a bit gives it to the kid, saying that if the kid's family is poor, he should have said so first. And the quote "You got a mouth, right? Learn how to use it."

On the last question: Strange how many are judgmental of the man who stole, to save a life and not of the drug maker who let people die, to make a dollar.

It depends on the what the sick wife wants, if she is asking for the drugs then I would exhaust all favors and drug research methods. I would also reach out to the pharmacists family and colleagues for help, if nothing changes then I would confront darkness with darkness knowing that it will provide light later on. I would also ask out loud for the universe to provide my wife with the cure she needs, sometimes the strangest things happen when you speak out loud.