The Heinz Dilemma

This represents that people can come to different choices that are moral yet diametrically opposed and both sides act in good faith when coming to these conclusions. [Link]

Heinz's wife is dying. There is a medicine that can cure her, but it costs $2000, and Heinz only has $1000. That covers the costs of the pharmacist who makes the medicine, but the pharmacist insists that he discovered the cure, and will charge what he wants for it. Should Heinz steal the medicine, or shouldn't he?

And some conclusions.

So much with the methods. But if this finding is true, it seems there are bigger problems with morality. What this experiment seems to say is people can take the same situation, and argue the same principles - social roles, the importance of interpersonal relationships, the likelihood of punishment, and pure humanitarian principles - and come to exactly opposite moral conclusions. And they do this for their whole lives. Sure, it's interesting to see that principles evolve over time, but it's more interesting to see that principles - at least the ones confined solely to the human mind - are irrelevant. There is no method or guiding idea that could possibly allow any group of humanity to come to a consensus. Morality, then, is basically chaos. We can start from the same place, and follow the same principles, and end at diametrically opposite ends of a problem, and there's no way to resolve that.