tnunamak Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 (edited) Hypothetical situation: A criminal has years of crime behind him, having done awful things to a lot of people, never having been caught. Finally realizes his immorality. He makes a major philosophical turn-around, and realizes all of the things he has done wrong. Unfortunately, because of the time that has passed, and because of the nature of his crimes, there is little he can do to undo them. Morally, should he hand himself to the law for punishment, or just continue with life? I would think that there is no reason for him to hand himself over once he has realized his mistake, as he is no longer a threat to society and does not need any outside help understanding the nature of what he has done. Edited June 13, 2006 by tnunamak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 He should require of himself to make reparations, though. This is taking responsibility for his actions. If he does that, however, he will most likely be caught. How do you think he should solve this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 This hypothetical is awfully vague, and thus meaningless. "Criminal?" "Awful things?" Like what? Was he downloading music illegally? Killing people and storing them in his freezer to eat? What's the state of the law regarding his crimes? Can he expect justice if he turns himself in? If he wishes to take up the task of becoming a moral man, he must make reparations for his crimes to the extent it is possible for him to do so. If his crimes are of such a magnitude that reparations of any kind are impossible (rape, murder, etc.) then I question whether it is, in fact, possible for him to become moral again, but turning himself over to the State might be a start in that direction . . . let him insist on the death penalty, immediately, if he wants us to believe the sincerity of his convictions. In fact, let him carry it out himself, without the State's intervention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OwenKellogg Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 (edited) Unfortunately, insisting immediate execution wouldn't go anywhere. Even if this person wanted to waive the whole process he couldn't there are about ten years of mandatory trials. In such a case, demanding immediate death would do very little to prove that you are attempting to change your ways seeing as the only effect would be being put on suicide watch. Once you are out, supposing you get out, rejoin the rest of the world and start making an honest living. If possible, pay some sort of retribution to those that you harmed. (If you are a rapist, devote what possible amount of your paycheck to your victim) After all, you would have essentially stole from them, giving them money is paying for it, although there are some things you can't put a price tag on. Edit: Oh, and never believe you are done paying for it. I would be willing to bet most rape victims never stop feeling the effect or are changed by the experience. Edited June 14, 2006 by OwenKellogg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 I would think that there is no reason for him to hand himself over once he has realized his mistake, as he is no longer a threat to society and does not need any outside help understanding the nature of what he has done.If he thinks this, he does not yet understand his own immorality. Ethics involves more than just refraining from further violations of people's rights, it also means understanding causality and justice. Actions have consequences -- good actions have good consequences, bad actions have bad consequences. So you can certainly evade that fact by saying "But as long as I promise to not do that again, it's okay if I raped, robbed and murdered -- those actions need not have any consequences". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnunamak Posted June 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 (edited) I apologize for the vague hypothetical. I was trying to generalize it into a question like, "what responsibilities does a man have after committing immoral actions in order to become as moral as possible once again." I guess I'm having trouble drawing the line between the idea that the reason that you shouldn't kill, rape, etc is because you are violating the rights of others, and because to do so is to forfeit your own rights and deny reality, drawing the line beteen that and how it would be correct to inflict punishment on oneself for doing so if no one else had done it already. Actions do have consequences, but who is to decide what they are? If I shoot at someone and he shoots back at me, that is a fair punishment for my being immoral, but if he doesn't shoot back at me and I walk away, should I punish myself? If I steal and the that man I steal from dies soon afterward, is it proper for me to cut off my own hand in the absence of a justice system to do so for me (just an example, I don't know that cutting off a hand would be proper). I can understand that one should try to pay back his victims in any capacity possible, but what if there is no way to pay them back? Should he still punish himself? Even if no one else would know that justice was done? Edited June 14, 2006 by tnunamak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.