Philosophical Ethics Case Study

Andrew Ng

Philosophical Ethics

Case Study 3

April 24, 2014

Case Study III

There have been several famous legal cases where an individual commits a crime decades ago before it was revealed. The question here is whether the person who committed the crime long ago should still be punished even though he/she has been clean ever since the wrongdoing. Some people would say that it depends on the severity of the crime; some would say you should pay for your crime no matter what you have committed. The matter of whether a person should be punished for what he/she has done long time ago arises in the Law and Order episode “White Rabbit”. In this episode, Susan Forest was found twenty-three years after she took part in a robbery intended as a protest against the Vietnam War. During the robbery, a policeman was killed and the case here is whether Susan should be punished for a crime she participated long time ago. According to rule and idea of Categorical Imperative given by Immanuel Kant in his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Susan should be sentenced for the crime she did no matter how long ago it happened or how upstanding of a member she is in the society.

The philosophical concept of a Categorical Imperative by Kant provides a standard of evaluating the motives of an action. In this case we can use Categorical Imperative to judge Susan’s action and why she deserves to be punished for the things she did twenty-three years ago. Categorical Imperative stands for the moral principles that are universalized across all rational beings. Immanuel Kant defines CI in three ways. First, he states that an action is wrongful if not all rational beings can follow. Clearly, Susan Forest's action cannot be universalized because she pla...

... middle of paper ...

... and irresponsible regardless of what consequence it brings about. So even before the Robbery and the killing of the officer occurs, the initial thou on Susan’s mind was already wrong and her failure to universalize her action would simply mean that her action is impermissible.

In conclusion, Kant's Categorical Imperative is an appropriate and convincing philosophical concept to illustrate why Susan should pay for what she has done long time ago; it provides no exceptions on wrongful acts. I believe the root and motivation of an action are the deciding factors on judging whether an action is right or wrong; if the starting point of your action is wrong, then no matter what the consequence is, you are wrong. Susan’s action can't be universalized and is simply against all moral rules; she should be certainly penalized for what she did even at a less severe level.