Tabalbag's Capital Punishment Society: An Analysis Of Ethical Theories

Scenario Overview

Question:

Discuss About The Tabalbag Given Capital Punishment Society?

Geecy Rebucas along with her boyfriend Roy Tabalbag were staying at Mona Road in a small flat. In the meanwhile, Geecy fell in love with Amin Sthapit and Geecy started an affair with him.

This report will highlight further the consequence of this illicit affair and will focus on the four ethical theories. Tabalbag stabbed Amin multiple times and killed him and the report’s case study is based on this murder case. This case study will be showcased on the basis of these four ethical theories- utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue and contract ethical theories.

In Amin Sthapit murder case scenario, Roy Abanales Tabalbag was accused of killing Amin Sthapit. Tabalbag had a girlfriend named Geecy Rebucas. Tabalbag was very upset as her girlfriend cheated him and was involved with another man. He caught her girlfriend having sex with Amin and thus he could not control himself and in anger stabbed Amin to death. Both Tabalbag and his girlfriend are culprits.  Amin was innocent; it was his girlfriend who cheated him. Tabalbag should have taken actions against his girlfriend, it could have been legal actions too (Barrow, 2015). He could have broken up with his girlfriend. According to the Utilitarianism ethical theory and principle, he killed Amin for his personal pleasure, Amin did no harm to society and to anybody. This scenario signifies negative instrumental value. This is not allowed; nobody can be allowed to kill someone for a personal wish or personal pleasure. Therefore, it must be ensured that nobody should follow Tabalbag's footsteps and to assure that, he must be imprisoned (Rosas & Koenigs, 2014). Tabalbag should be penalized for his crime. Tabalbag though accepted the guilty of manslaughter but he did not accept the guilty of killing Amin, however, he should realize he committed crime killing an innocent person that is why he requires imprisonment.

Deontology ethical principle does not support killing a person, and as Amin was innocent. It was Geecy Rebucas, who was the main culprit; she cheated her boyfriend and made affair with another man. Not only that she called Amin to her house and the duo was involved in love making. Amin could have been unaware that Rebucas had a boyfriend and so he proceeded with Rebucas (Playford, Roberts & Playford, 2015). However, Amin predicted beforehand that her girlfriend was cheating. That is why he installed a software program named Dr Fone and acquired Rebucas's deleted texts and phone calling lists. He too accessed her laptop to find more clues that means he knew everything initially and was getting ready to catch her girlfriend red handed. He could break up with his girlfriend or could have taken any legal actions, but instead, he killed Amin in anger. Amin was trying to save himself, Rebucas tried to stop him, Tabalbag did not listen instead repeatedly stabbing Amin to death (Chakrabarty & Bass, 2015). If he stopped in between then Amin could have been saved. Tabalbag should not have killed Amin at any cost. Amin had not committed any crime and he was innocent and thus it was not ethical to kill Amin.

Utilitarianism Ethics

Virtue Ethics highlight Tabalbag as a person. From the scenario, it can be said Tabalbag was in a serious relationship with his girlfriend Rebucas. However, before a month of this murder case, he found his girlfriend's behaviour to be suspicious. He repeatedly asked her whether she was involved with other man or not, but she refused to tell (Tsoukas, 2017). She should have chosen between Amin and Tabalbag, she should have told Tabalbag about Amin, if possible she should break up with Tabalbag, but she cheated him. Tabalbag had to find clues. He installed software named Dr Fone to retrieve Rebucas's hidden texts and phone call list. He also accessed her laptop and found that she sent an email in which she had written that she could not be able to attend Ryde TAFE lectures. From that day, Tabalbag was trying to catch her red handed. Tabalbag intentionally used the program Find My Phone Program to trace Rebucas’ phone (Bruni & Sugden, 2013). Tabalbag was trying to find what she wanted to do meanwhile skipping the lectures. He traced her mobile and found it at home, so he rushed to the home. At home, he found that both Rebucas and Amin were naked and both of them were having sex. He could not control himself and stabbed Amin to death.

The Public Defender, Eric Wilson stated that anybody could have taken such a drastic step in that scenario and Tabalbag was no exception. Later after this act he himself handed himself to police and pleaded guilty of his act that is manslaughter, he was involved in a serious relationship and he loved his girlfriend very much, however, seeing her with another man he could not tolerate and in anger he stabbed Amin. Though he accepted he did wrong stabbing Amin, however, he never pleaded guilty to the murder (Mizzoni, 2017). It can be inferred from the above scenario that he is beloved yet stubborn in nature, he murdered an innocent man and he is not ready to accept the guilt. He should be severely punished for his committed crime.

Social contract ethics deals with a set of rules and regulations which each and every individual should follow; Tabalbag should have followed the rules too. Being involved in criminal activities is not a good example for someone and for the society. It can benefit one’s personal wish or personal demands, however, it does not benefit the society, the murder of a person makes a negative impact on the society, and the individuals will learn things that are illegal and harmful for society (Vayena et al., 2015). Thus to maintain peace and stability Australia government should prepare laws and every individual should abide by the law. Tabalbag killed Amin though he was innocent though he was not ready to take up the guilty of murder. Tabalbag should receive capital punishment. The society believes a capital punishment can be beneficial for both individuals and the society (Birnbaum & Lach, 2014). A death penalty in severe cases is also acceptable in some scenario by the society.

Deontology Ethics

Tabalbag has committed a crime and he must deserve a capital punishment for the social benefits. His girlfriend was the main culprit, but in anger, he both hurt his girlfriend and Amin. Though he handed himself to police and accepted that he had done a serious crime like man slaughtering yet he cannot escape the harsh capital punishment. Moreover, he believes he did the right think killing Amin. He should understand his guilt and thus a capital punishment can be beneficial for both Tabalbag and the society. The society should learn from the example this type of crime should not be repeated (Bowie, 2015). Also, Rebucas should learn from this scenario that everyone should respect the relationship and also each other's partner.

Conclusion

It can be concluded from the above discourse that Tabalbag committed a serious crime killing Amin. The report highlighted the four ethical theories- utilitarianism, deontology, virtue and contract in details. In case of utilitarianism ethical theory, it has been shown Tabalbag has committed serious crime killing an innocent man and needs to be imprisoned. In case of deontology ethical theory, it has been showcased that since Amin was innocent he should not be killed and Tabalbag in anger committed a crime. In case of virtue ethical theory, it has been detailed Tabalbag pleaded guilty for man slaughtering but not for killing him, his stubborn character is the main weakness of him. From the contract ethics perspective, Tabalbag must be given capital punishment so that the society should be aware of this misdeed and should not replicate ever in future.

References

Barrow, R., (2015). Utilitarianism: A contemporary statement. Routledge.

Birnbaum, R. & Lach, L., (2014). Teaching about what ethical social work practice means: Responsibility starts with schools of social work. Intervention 2014, 140, pp.37-43.

Bowie, N.E., (2015). Richard De George and the Use of Ethical Theory in Applied Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(4), pp.699-706.

Bruni, L. & Sugden, R., (2013). Reclaiming virtue ethics for economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(4), pp.141-163.

Chakrabarty, S. & Bass, A.E., (2015). Comparing virtue, consequentialist, and deontological ethics-based corporate social responsibility: Mitigating microfinance risk in institutional voids. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), pp.487-512.

Mizzoni, J., 2017. Ethics: the basics. John Wiley & Sons.

Playford, R.C., Roberts, T. & Playford, E.D., (2015). Deontological and utilitarian ethics: a brief introduction in the context of disorders of consciousness. Disability and rehabilitation, 37(21), pp.2006-2011.

Rosas, A. & Koenigs, M., (2014). Beyond “utilitarianism”: Maximizing the clinical impact of moral judgment research. Social neuroscience, 9(6), pp.661-667.

Tsoukas, H., (2017). Strategy and virtue: developing strategy-as-practice through virtue ethics. Strategic Organization.

Vayena, E., Brownsword, R., Edwards, S.J., Greshake, B., Kahn, J.P., Ladher, N., Montgomery, J., O'connor, D., O'neill, O., Richards, M.P. and Rid, A., (2015). Research led by participants: a new social contract for a new kind of research. Journal of medical ethics, pp.medethics-2015.