When determining a person's level of moral development, Kohlberg asked the person to read real$-$life dilemmas similar to the one that follows. He was

not interested in whether a person saw a particular act as being ethical or unethical, but rather in the reasoning a person used to come to his or her

conclusion.

Read the scenario and answer the question that follows.

Ginny's roommate, Eric, invites her to a frat party that some friends are hosting. Ginny decides to stay home and work on a term

paper due later that week. At some point in the evening, Eric stumbles home and passes out in the hallway. When Ginny finds

him, he is completely unresponsive. After several attempts to wake him, Ginny calls $911$ and accompanies her roommate to the

hospital. She explains what happened to her professor the next morning but can't get an extension on the paper. When she tells

Eric, he says, "I took that class a few semesters ago. You can use my paper. Think of it as my way of thanking you." Should Ginny

accept his offer?

Which of the following responses best represents reasoning from the preconventional level?

I wouldn't. If she gets caught, she could wind up getting an $F$ for the semester.

She shouldn't plagiarize, but I$\text{'}$d like to think that her professor could make an exception to the rule regarding late papers. I mean, should

she have let her roommate die while she finished the paper? How would anyone be better off in that scenario?

I think it's okay if she does. Most of the people I know would probably do the same thing if they were in her situation.