response

  I would have done the same thing if I had to save the life of one of my loved ones like Heinz, especially if it was a family member who was close to die. In my opinion Heinz didn't have much of a choice because he couldn't afford the medication. If he had the founds, I believe he would have done the proper thing and the case would have turned out differently. I don't think Heinz has a high moral compass because stealing is unethical but at the same time I understand why he did it, his wife life was on the line.

  Heinz’s decision is compatible with post-conventional morality which is vague and ill-defined, but they could include things like the significance of human dignity and the preservation of life at all costs. Moral reasoning is founded on individual rights and justice, and individual judgment I would go with stage 6 Principles of Universal Application

People have established their own set of moral rules at this point, which may or may not correspond to the law. Everyone can benefit from the principles. Human rights, justice, and equality are all important concepts. The person will be willing to act to defend these ideals, even if it means going against the grain of society and risking condemnation and/or imprisonment in the process. Few people, according to Kohlberg, have achieved this point.