Andrew Ng Philosophical Ethics Case Study April 324, 2014 Case Study IIIThere have been several famous legal cases in which 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 if he is clean since committing the crime. Some would say it depends on the severity of the crime; some would say you should pay for your crime, whatever you committed. The question of whether a person should be punished for what they did long ago comes up in the Law and Order episode "White Rabbit." In this episode, Susan Forest is found twenty-three years after taking part in a robbery intended as a protest against the Vietnam War. During the robbery, a policeman was killed and the issue here is whether Susan should be punished for a crime she participated in long ago. According to the rule and idea of ​​the categorical imperative given by Immanuel Kant in his work Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Susan should be condemned for the crime she committed, no matter how long ago it happened or how honest she is as a member of society . Kant's philosophical concept of the categorical imperative provides a standard for evaluating the motivations for an action. In this case we can use the categorical imperative to judge Susan's action and why she deserves to be punished for the things she did twenty-three years ago. The categorical imperative represents moral principles that are universalized in all rational beings. Immanuel Kant defines IC in three ways. First, it states that an action is illicit if not all rational beings can follow it. Clearly, Susan Forest's action cannot be universalized because she plays games... middle of paper... and is irresponsible regardless of the resulting consequences. So, even before the robbery and killing of the officer occurs, the initial you in Susan's mind was already wrong and her inability to universalize her action would simply mean that her action is impermissible. In conclusion, Kant's categorical imperative is an appropriate and convincing philosophical approach. concept to illustrate why Susan should pay for what she did a long time ago; does not provide exceptions for illicit acts. I believe that the root and motivation of an action are the decisive factors in judging whether an action is right or wrong; if the starting point of your action is wrong, then whatever the consequence, you are wrong. Susan's action is not universalizable and is simply against every moral rule; she should certainly be penalized for what she did even on a less serious level.