Ted Kaczynski, the UNABOMBER - An Ethical Case Study

Ted Kaczynski, the UNABOMBER - An Ethical Case Study

The intent of this study is to determine exactly how much responsibility Ted Kaczynski must accept for his actions as the UNABOMBER. The essential problem of the situation is that Kaczynski claims complete responsibility, but he has been ruled mentally ill by the State. He adamantly denies his illness, stating that social maladjustment, although technically a sickness, is distinct from an organic based illness, and therefore within his realm of free will. We will also address the role his brother and sister-in-law played in the tragedy, their motives, and the impact their pleas have brought to bear on the dilemma.

We will examine this ethology from an existentialist perspective, as this is the most applicable to Ted Kaczynski himself.

Case Summary

During an 18-year period as the UNABOMBER, Ted Kaczynski wounded 23 people and killed 3 with pipe bombs. He is a vehement anarchist and Luddite who feels that oversocialization and technology are destroying Man and strangling out any kind of Freedom he may have ever possessed. According to section 114 of his manifesto, "The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function…. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules…. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us."

Evidenc...

... middle of paper ...

...

Conclusions

Existentially, David has made the dominant decision in the end, and the truly free decision. Ted, as do most ‘martyrs’ (which is how he views himself) has chosen to sacrifice his freedom by not ending his own life. Right to die? He has it every day when he looks around him. If he leaves his right to die in someone else’s hands, he accepts no responsibility and therefore does not truly exist as a free individual, and therefore does not have a right to die.

The strengths of this model are that there is an intrinsic master and slave: this is also the weakness, because Ted denied the existence of the master in that all men were there own masters.

Unlike Ted, who claims to accept responsibility but actually denied it by denying the inequality of existence, his brother did accept the responsibility by choosing to exist in dominance.