Something that caught my eye while reading about Kohlberg's three stages in moral reasoning was the second level: conventional morality. This level is mostly a focus on what society will think of you when making choices. Something is considered correct if society approves and exactly the opposite when something is considered wrong. To think in that way is too fixed. Society, realistically, is much more flexible then just right or wrong. Using the textbook's Heinz example, we can all probably agree that stealing is wrong. But the actual reasons for stealing are also important and should be considered more important than the act itself. The only reason Heinz would force himself to steal the drugs for his wife is because it was for the greater good. He even offered half the money to the doctor and promised to pay the rest later. But of course, the doctor refused thus forcing Heinz into the decision to steal. Then of course he would probably be charged for something in the court of law for stealing, but when that time comes, society will not vote to choose to punish a desperate man who only out of the act of love, stole to save his wife. But if the drug was something deadly and Heinz was about to pull a stunt of poisoning the water system and kill off thousands of people just so people will fear and respect him out of his mad and sadistic mind, then yes, this would then be considered morally wrong and insane. Society can be flexible and by just merely calling out if something is right or wrong is inefficient.
