Comments on: Kohlberg Dilemmas

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:02:53 +0000

Good point, ltbugaf.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Mon, 08 May 2006 14:20:31 +0000

I forgot to answer the other questions. Promises are important, and it shows integrity to keep them. I personally believe that Heavenly Father expects us to keep our promises. When he makes a promise He ALWAYS without fail, keeps it. We can count on Him. We should have the same integrity as well.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Sat, 06 May 2006 02:37:00 +0000

I also didn’t raise the question to criticize you; I raised it as another interesting point to ponder.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Sat, 06 May 2006 02:04:27 +0000

I was inferring it only from what was already listed in the scenario: The man is referred to as “a retired old man who was known to help people in town.” If he’s out $1000, he can do less to help others.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Fri, 05 May 2006 18:37:10 +0000

That may be possible, but there was no reason for me to infer that from the information in the scenario.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Fri, 05 May 2006 02:40:46 +0000

What about the others who might have benefited from the money that the generous man has now lost? If he’s in the habit of making loans to the needy, then some genuinely needy people have likely lost out.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Fri, 05 May 2006 01:28:39 +0000

I am going to say that the actions of the person who stole from the store are worse because they potentially affect more than one person. Potentially, the store owner may recover from the loss by increasing the price of his goods, thus passing on the effects of the theft on to his customers.

In one instance, the crime is against one person. In the other, the crime is against a collective society.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Thu, 04 May 2006 20:49:26 +0000

In the case of a person who chooses not to lock his store, we intuitively feel that he’s being foolish, opening himself up to the enemies who want to take his belongings. But in the case of a man who chooses to trust a stranger, we are less inclined to call him foolish: Here, there is a competing virtue. We want people to be trusting, at least to a point. When they aren’t, we call them cycnical and unfriendly. But we have a societal norm of drawing the line of trust much earlier when it comes to locking doors, as opposed to believing strangers.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Thu, 04 May 2006 17:17:48 +0000

Taking advantage of someone’s special trust and kindness intuitively seems more sinister than defeating someone’s physical security precautions. In the second instance, the two sides are dealing with each other frankly as enemies: The storekeeper puts locks on his store because he asusmes there’s an enemy—a burglar—who’s going to try to get his valuables. The kindly old man, though, doesn’t believe he’s dealing with an enemy. A trust is being violated in that case that isn’t violated in the other.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Thu, 04 May 2006 16:35:34 +0000

hmm, dilemma. Well I think TECHNICALLY both wrong doings were equally bad, but my personal feeling is cheating the old man was worse, not only for cheating someone, but taking advantage of someone is so heinous. The old man was being compassionate, I believe. Irresponsible? Well maybe. But not really, he was trusting Bob.