Comments on: Kohlberg Dilemmas http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=kohlberg-dilemmas Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:27:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Kim Siever http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/comment-page-1/#comment-21950 Kim Siever Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:02:53 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/#comment-21950 Good point, ltbugaf. Good point, ltbugaf.

]]> By: Mary Siever http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/comment-page-1/#comment-8459 Mary Siever Mon, 08 May 2006 14:20:31 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/#comment-8459 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. 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 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/comment-page-1/#comment-8418 ltbugaf Sat, 06 May 2006 02:37:00 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/#comment-8418 I also didn't raise the question to criticize you; I raised it as another interesting point to ponder. I also didn’t raise the question to criticize you; I raised it as another interesting point to ponder.

]]> By: ltbugaf http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/comment-page-1/#comment-8416 ltbugaf Sat, 06 May 2006 02:04:27 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/#comment-8416 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. 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 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/comment-page-1/#comment-8406 Kim Siever Fri, 05 May 2006 18:37:10 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/#comment-8406 That may be possible, but there was no reason for me to infer that from the information in the scenario. That may be possible, but there was no reason for me to infer that from the information in the scenario.

]]> By: ltbugaf http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/comment-page-1/#comment-8386 ltbugaf Fri, 05 May 2006 02:40:46 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/#comment-8386 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. 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 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/comment-page-1/#comment-8385 Kim Siever Fri, 05 May 2006 01:28:39 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/#comment-8385 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. 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 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/comment-page-1/#comment-8374 ltbugaf Thu, 04 May 2006 20:49:26 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/#comment-8374 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. 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 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/comment-page-1/#comment-8365 ltbugaf Thu, 04 May 2006 17:17:48 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/#comment-8365 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. 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 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/comment-page-1/#comment-8362 Mary Siever Thu, 04 May 2006 16:35:34 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/04/kohlberg-dilemmas/#comment-8362 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. 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.

]]>