In: Psychology
For this question answer by:
1: What you would do in this situation.
2: Why you would make that choice.
3: Which of Kohlberg's levels of moral reasoning your choice represents?
You live in the home built by your father. The home has been in the family for more than 50 years. Recently an unscrupulous banker used a technicality in property tax law to take the home from you. The banker plans to give the home to one of his family members to live in. A court case has recently come up in which a large corporation could claim all of the bankers' assets based on information you have about him. The corporation plans to tear down the house to build a luxury condominium. Do you help the corporation take the bankers assets?
In this situation, I would just let the person take the property. Yes, it hurts and I can make it up for my hurt by the information I have about him. But what is the point anyways? Am I going to get it back? No. My property has gone and I will never get it back. Yes, the banker would be justified if he was punished and all his assets would have lost, but what’s the point after all? Am I really getting justice? No. It would be better to just leave it away, and not be concerned about his affairs, for I believe, the cheated will always win in life. Even if I don’t, that’s okay. But I personally don’t want to let go of my character and make sure the other person too should suffer loss just because I am suffering. People should have the basic common sense, and if they lack it, I pity that. Because no matter how much ever you try and make them understand, they will never. So, if I have to leak out the information about the banker, it wouldn’t make him a better person at all. But just letting him be, probably one day, it might convict him of his own guilt, then I am sure, he will have a reason to change. So, let the circumstances change and punish him. But I will not let go of my character just because someone harms me. Like the saying goes “Slap on one cheek and I will show you my other” I follow that principle. This could be very silly, but it is definitely like pouring hot burning coals on the head of a person.
The reasoning I am using here is the Morality of universal ethical principles, the Level III: Postconventional stage, where it says, “People do what they as individuals think is right, regardless of legal restrictions or the opinions of others. They act in accordance with internalized standards, knowing that they would condemn themselves if they did not.