When I read the segment in the text on pages 395-396, my mind jumped instantly to the TV show Breaking Bad, in which almost every character is morally ambiguous and impossible to judge. The show, very briefly, is about a high school chemistry teacher (Walt) who is diagnosed with lung cancer while still middle aged, with a wife and a handicapped child. He refused handouts to pay for his expensive treatment for personal reasons, and instead chose to cook and sell Meth with an ex-student of his in order to create a financial nest egg for his family, should he pass away. Kohlberg doesn't score the answers from his dilemmas based on what IS morally right or wrong, he only scored the reasoning processes they used to decide right from wrong.
Applied to Breaking Bad, Kohlbrg's moral dilemmas in my mind would look like this.
Preconventional morality: a focus on punishment and reward. Walt SHOULD cook meth because he could get away with it and get a lot of money. Walt should NOT cook meth because he might get caught, get arrested, and embarrass the family he is trying to provide for.
Conventional Morality: a focus on societal values. Walt SHOULD cook meth because dealing hard drugs (and not consuming them) will eventually allow his family to live comfortably without him, and Society would see him as a failure post mortem if he left his family with staggering debt and no real income. Besides, through supply and demand, the drug would still be produced if Walt was not cooking it. Walt should NOT cook meth because its against the law, and he is providing something that ruins the lives of others (even though he doesn't know the people to whom he provides).
Postconventional Morality: a focus on internal moral principles that transcend society. Walt SHOULD cook meth because providing a healthy life for ones family and allowing them to live without massive financial burden of higher moral principal that can overrule anti-drug laws in this case. Walt should NOT cook meth because in doing so, he is violating basic human principles of empathy and what is good by providing life-ruining drugs to the lower class and slums of Arizona while re-investing the money into his own family.
Personally, I think that Walt is morally wrong in his decision to make money in the way that he does. However, examining the thought process is interesting, and it's difficult to know the right answer.
What do you think? Dealing drugs is clearly morally wrong, but is this particular case justifiable? Keep in mind that when walt makes his decision, he is the primary earner of the household, his child is handicapped, and his wife is currently pregnant with a second.