Twenty-four parents, mothers or fathers, of 3-5 year old children in a pre-school nursery kept diaries of problematic encounters within the family. Two of these encounters were later presented as "pretend" stories to "that" child who made judgments of and emotionally reacted as if he/she were the story actor including giving reasons for complying. Encounters were coded into different domains (moral, social-conventional, prudential, etc.), and children's reactions compared across domains "within" each pair of encounters. Instead of the standard "right"/"wrong" question, the children were asked why they would/wouldn't commit the transgression again. All children said that they wouldn't do it again, but their reasons were more often congruent or consistent with the nature of prudential than of other kinds of transgressions, especially than moral transgressions. This suggests that while children may know "right from wrong," they do not see it as relevant to their moral behavior.