A child who breaks glasses on accident is more morally culpable than a child who breaks one glass while reaching for a jar while his parents aren’t home , but children won't even understand this.

It’s obvious that the amount of glasses broken is inconsequential to the morality of the action.

It matters more how the glass was broken, not how many.

This is so- because -the book says so.

‘Younger children will associate the higher level of damage as- being more immoral than the reason -why it was broken.

It is only through reasoning that we may determine which case is worse.

In this instance the child who broke the one glass did it while disobeying his parents -, therefore causing the problem.’

-You can’t say that you think the glasses broken on accident -were worse because there were more glasses involved.

-I don’t think that the one glass being broken was worse either.

Just because the first kid broke the glasses by accident doesn’t mean that he wasn’t doing anything wrong.

Shouldn’t one be more cautious of their surroundings whilst in the presence of fragile objects?

And who’s to say that the second kid was doing a bad thing -by reaching to get the jar?

-Maybe he is suppose to occasionally reach for high placed objects, a sort of sick game the parents play with the kid everyday , and he’ll be punished horribly if he hasn’t reached said object by the time they arrive.

Or- what if his -little sister is dying and he needs to reach her medicine that has been placed in a jar, high above, out of her reach, not to mention the dog ?

It’s obvious that a child should not be putting themselves in such a dangerous position - while their parents are not home.

If some anomaly -had occurred that would have made the act permissible, it would have be -en- mentioned.

And besides, the first child may not have known the glasses were by him.

Think about it in this manner-, a man, -while driving accidentally hits a bicyclist -while looking down at the radio.

Another man -accidentally hits a bicyclist while angrily swerving around traffic.

The consequences of the actions are sad, but don’t cause either action to be more or less immoral -, that, we can agree upon.

-My point is that you don’t just go around breaking glasses without any sort of primer , we don’t know what that was, so we can’t say that this is a poor kid in an unfortunate situation.