Suppose a child goes into a store to buy a loaf of bread. The shopkeeper realizes that he could shortchange the child. But he worries that if he did so, other customers might find out, and he would lose business. So he gives the child the correct change. Does the shopkeeper’s action have moral worth? Answer yes or no, and then please tell us why.
4 comments:
I would say because of WHY he chose not to cheat the child, his action lacks moral worth. He is only not cheating an innocent child because he thinks he will get caught and it will negatively impact his business. To be moral, his decision should be based on doing what is right. For example, if he recognized he could shortchange the child, but he said to himself "This is not the right thing to do. Taking advantage of someone to line my pockets (regardless if I will get caught doing it) is just wrong. Therefore, I won't do it." His motivation in your example is all wrong...it is still centered on HIM, not what is morally right behavior.
My first response was to agree with Wendy...but then I got to thinking that there's at least some moral merit in his final action...vs had he actually short changed the child. Not much, but some. Are there degrees of morality or just right and wrong?
Interesting question, June. Maybe there's a little good and a little bad in every decision we make, sort of like a sliding scale. So you are willing to give him credit for the right thing, even if it's for the wrong reason?
Well I'll ask another question...full of them more than answers :-)
If a German soldier saves a Jewish family from being sent to a concentration camp, but only does so if he is paid...does that act have any moral worth? I think it does and I think the Jewish family would agree.
Post a Comment