Gilligan discusses an infamous dilemma created by Kohlberg to measure moral development in adolescents: A man named Heinz must decide whether or not to steal a drug he cannot afford in order to save the life of his wife.

Gilligan analyzes two responses, one from an 11-year-old boy, Jake, and one from an 11-year-old girl, Amy. Jake sees the problem the same way Kohlberg sees it, as a “conflict between the properties of value and life” (26 ). Following this train of thought, Jake determines that the property of life should trump that of property and that the “only thing that is totally logical” (26) is to steal the drug. He believes, too, that a judge would understand the need for the theft.

Amy’s answer, however, does not see the dilemma in the same terms that Kohlberg (or Jake) does. Instead, she sees a “narrative of relations that extends over time” (28), questioning the leading question “should he steal the drug?” with an entirely different approach that involves a discussion with the pharmacist, a possible alternative way of making the money, and a reluctance to endorse theft due to the husband possibly being imprisoned and therefore being unable to care for his wife.