"Heinz dilemma"

In Monday's homework, there was an interesting idea when explaining moral development in childhood. The "Heinz dilemma" was introduced, which is:

"In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2,000, ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No." The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife" (Kohlberg, 1969, p. 379).

Should the husband have done that? Why?

Some children, at the pre conventional level of moral reasoning, interpret the behavior in terms of its concrete consequences, and considering social virtues. Others, at the conventional level, define the right behavior as the one that is the most helpful and is approved. Then, the post conventional level is when children think of principles like justice, liberty, and equality. Depending how someone answered, they could be assumed to be in one of these stages.

However, I don't think that someone's answer to this question could determine how much they have morally developed, because people have different morals and this is a very controversial dilemma. Personally, I think what he did was justified. So, I am wondering what do other people think?