The Heinz Dilemma
Most ethics cases are presented in the form of “dilemmas” with clear cut choices in an attempt to “focus” on the core problem. Should we steal or not? Should we prioritize the many over the few? Should we focus on long-term or the short-term gains? The Heinz dilemma is a popular example of this approach. Here we highlight how it can limit our ability to imagine alternate possibilities.
Dominant Framing of the Problem
The Heinz Dilemma (and its variants) are commonly used in ethics courses as a way of inviting students to think about moral dilemmas. One version of the dilemma proceeds as follows: A woman is lying very sick at the hospital. The doctor says that she needs to be given a very rare and expensive drug as soon as possible in order to survive. Her husband Heinz rushes to the drug store to try and buy the drug. But talking with the druggist, he learns that he cannot afford it. He pleads with the druggist to give him the drug arguing that he will pay for it later. However, the druggist refuses stating that they deserve to be paid for creating such a rare drug and cannot just hand it out. If they give it to Heinz for free, then soon everyone in a similar situation will come asking for it. Heinz tries to gather money from his friends and relatives, but he still cannot afford the drug. He steps outside and paces around anxiously.
It is now near closing time. Heinz realizes that he can break into the store by picking the lock on the door once the druggist leaves. He is now pondering a dilemma: Should he steal the drug? Or should he let his wife die?
Different ethical theories are usually applied to help students think about the situation. A utilitarian approach might argue that Heinz should break into the store as the happiness that he and his wife will gain by doing so outweighs the risk of being put in prison (as well as the sadness/anger of the druggist). A Kantian approach might argue that stealing in principle is morally wrong and therefore Heinz has no right to break into the store, regardless of the consequences.
Most ethics cases are presented in the form of “dilemmas” with clear cut choices in an attempt to “focus” on the core problem
Concerns and Considerations
By limiting the possible options available, the dilemma attempts to bring to focus the core problem here: when is it justifiable to steal? While this can help students understand the value of ethical theories to such dilemma-like situations, this approach has two key concerns.
First, this approach relies on a predetermined and reductive framing of the situation. Should Heinz steal or not? Real-life situations are rarely ever reducible to such dilemmas. Instead, they are rich with possible alternative pathways. Focusing on such reductive dilemmas can limit ethical reasoning to a theoretical exercise, rather than a practice grounded in the specificities of the situation.
Second, the dilemma legitimizes both choices as being equal and valid. Stealing can be justified on the basis of one theory, while not stealing on the basis of another. Such “both-siding” can inadvertently lead to relativistic thinking, giving the illusion that ethics is a purely subjective exercise. In practice however, this is again rarely the case. The goal ethical inquiry is not to provide justification for all choices, but to help one investigate the situation for more information so that a concrete decision can be made. This involves strategies such as developing more nuanced criteria for examining the situation, researching more about possible outcomes, learning about perspectives one may not have considered earlier and so on. The predetermined legitimization of choices in such dilemmas is precisely what ethical reasoning aims to dissolve.
Thinking of real situations as dilemmas forecloses possibilities that can serve as practical resolutions
Reframing the Problem
There are several possibilities foreclosed by such a reductive framing. Can the husband negotiate a payment installment plan with the druggist? Can the doctors find a temporary solution to delay death until the medicine can be obtained? Can he steal the medicine and the medicine seller be compensated by insurance? By focusing just on the two choices: should he steal it or not, the Heinz dilemma limits our ways of thinking about the situation and forecloses options. Drawing on the capacious space of possibilities, the problem can be reframed in several ways: “What can Heinz’s friends do to help him? How can the justice system prevent such price gouging? What other modes of payment can the doctor be persuaded to accept?” and so on. Probing the specificities, perspectives, uncertainties, and structures underlying the situation is necessary to make an informed ethical decision of the way forward, not limiting options and legitimizing them all equally.