Question：The directors of Fritton have just been told by their accountants of a loophole the accountants believe they can exploit through trading in a certain country abroad, the Southern Equatorial Republic. They can exploit this country's tax regime by electing that their worldwide profits are treated as taxable there and, because the tax rate there is very low, paying very little tax. This will mean that Fritton will have zero chargeable profits and will not be taxed in its home country.
However there has been considerable adverse publicity in Fritton's home country about the use of this loophole. The local tax authorities are also investigating whether the loophole is valid.
The tax situation was discussed at a recent board meeting. Which of the following views expressed at the meeting is an example of a pre-conventional method of reasoning using Kohlberg's framework?
A. We shouldn't make the most of small print in the tax legislation to avoid our obligations to the society we operate in.
B. If our government wants us to stop channeling our profits through the Southern Equatorial Republic, it should give us more tax concessions itself.
C. We don't yet know whether the loophole is legal or not.
D. Why shouldn't we do what other companies are doing and make the most of the loophole.
The correct answer is: If our government wants us to stop channeling our profits through the Southern Equatorial Republic, it should give us more tax concessions itself. The argument is based on the idea of the government making an effective bargain with Fritton to stop using the loophole.
解析：Why shouldn't we do what other companies are doing and make the most of the loophole is conventional reasoning at the lower level (why shouldn't we do what everyone else is doing). We don't yet know whether the loophole is legal or not is an example of conventional reasoning at the higher level (we should be sure we're obeying the law). We shouldn't make the most of small print in the tax legislation to avoid our obligations to the society we operate in is an example of post-conventional reasoning (we should do what's right, despite what everyone else is doing and what the law allows us to do).
，我們將會(huì)及時(shí)處理。