University, has made a careful study of this subject, from replies
given by many men to questions about their ideas as boys. It seems
that men who are irreproachable in their moral standards pass
through a stage in which they consider it legitimate fun to rob
orchards or to commit petty thefts.

Children draw fine distinctions between _wrong_ acts and acts
that are _not very wrong_, though they may not be _quite
right_. One man says, "I distinguished between _taking money_,
_real stealing_, and _taking fruit_." Another says of fruit
taking, "I only partly regarded it as stealing." One man writes,
"When a close-fisted employer refused to let me have my clothes at
cost, I pocketed enough of his change to bring my clothes down to
the cost mark." Few regarded taking money from their parents as
"very bad," and distinguished between such stealing and taking money
from strangers.

A boy of fifteen was reproved for holding his ear to the keyhole of
a room in which his mother and sisters were having an animated
discussion. The appellation "eavesdropper" did not disconcert him in
the least. On the contrary, he undertook to justify his conduct on
the ground that he was being discussed, and as he had no
"dictagraph" he was obliged to do the listening in person. The fact
that the dictagraph had been so frequently used for getting
information that was later used in court was to him a sufficient
justification of his conduct.

It is well known that all children pass through the stage
illustrated by these cases, in which they have the savage's
conception of right and wrong. For most children the difference