Sam Slime: A Reflective Analysis of the Scenarios - Case Study Example

Sam Slime Introduction The politically and socially conscious human beings of the modern world understand corruption and abusive deployment of powerby the political process as a greater menace to social well-being than the crimes done individually. The conscious process of political, social, and public perceptions helps the modern rational human being comprehend the crude realities of political and social malfunctions exactly. Evidences of political actions catastrophically influencing numerous aspects of individuals substantiate the point that stealing through the political process is morally more reprehensible than stealing done individually. One of the evident illustrations of abusive political processes has been presented in the case study “Sam Slime” which conspicuously proves how easily the political process, just as the individual corruption, can damage individual interest. In both Scene 1 and 2 of the case study “Sam Slime”, there is an act of stealing or the illegal taking of another person’s property ($50) without his freely-given consent. Whereas the stealing by individual criminal in the first scene is legally challengeable, forcing the thief to pay for it, there is no such provision in the second scenario where the act of snatching has been performed by more systematic process of political process which makes the situation of the victim more lamentable. The commonality between these two scenarios is that the same person is the real sufferer in the stealing by the individual as well as the political process, and the breakdown of this commonality is in the fact that the individual is acknowledged as the victim in the Scene 1 whereas the same person turns out to be the criminal in the Scene 2 where stealing is actually done by the political process. Therefore, in my profound perception on the basis of based on an understanding of economic theory and ethical philosophy, stealing through the political process is morally more reprehensible than stealing done individually and regular political expropriation of another individual’s income is exactly similar to slavery. Sam Slime: A Reflective Analysis of the Scenarios in the Case Study A reflective analysis of the case study “Sam Slime” based on economic theory and ethical philosophy brings out three essential points: (1) there is significant commonalities between the two scenarios presented in the case study which refer to the differences and similarities between them, (2) stealing through the political process is morally more reprehensible than stealing done individually, and (3) regular political expropriation of another individual’s income is exactly similar to slavery. There are two scenarios presented in the case study which offer similar effect on the person who suffers the damage. The major connection between the two scenarios is that the central sufferer in both scenes is the same individual and one finds the difference between the two scenarios in the effect of stealing done by an individual and a political process. In both the scenes, the person loses the same amount of money and the process is almost the same – an act of robbery. Therefore, there is similarity in the sufferer of the crime (though cannot be termed as ‘victim’ in the second scenario), the amount of money lost and the process of crime. Significantly, the commonality between the two scenarios is that the same person is the real sufferer – he is the victim in the stealing by the individual and the actual sufferer in the snatching through the political process. The breakdown of this commonality can be evidently seen in the fact that the individual who is acknowledged as the ‘victim’ in the Scene 1 turns out to be the ‘criminal’ in the Scene 2 and the difference is that the act of stealing done by individual in the first scenario becomes an action done by the political process in the second scenario. However, there are some essential differences between the two scenarios which cause the breakdown of the commonality between them. The most important difference between the two scenarios is that the so called ‘victim’ of the first scene turns out to be the ‘criminal’ in the second scene through the particular political process of raising the taxes and transferring it to the ‘disadvantaged’. Whereas the mugger Sam Slime, who ultimately becomes the ‘criminal’ in the first scene causes damage to the sufferer of the stealing, the mugger in the second scenario, the corrupt political process of raising the taxes and transferring it to the ‘disadvantaged’, causes a greater damage to him – he suffers a loss of the same amount of money as well as he becomes the criminal that goes to jail. The immensity of the burglary by the political process is heavier on the individual than the stealing done individually. A mere act of corrupt political process transforms the defendant to the culprit and the damage done to the individual is of double effect than the damage by individual crime. In short, there are significant commonalities between the two scenarios presented in the case study which refer to the differences and similarities between them. In a profound analysis of the case study based on economic theory and ethical philosophy, it becomes palpable that stealing through the political process is morally more reprehensible than stealing done individually. The stealing done through the political process can be best comprehended as an evident example of political corruption which ultimately damages the interest of the individual, and there are different perspectives to view this act of corruption. “The definition of political corruption based on legalistic criteria assumes that political behavior is corrupt when it violates some formal standard or rule of behavior set down by a political system for its public officials. Definitions of political corruption based on notions of the public or common interest significantly broaden the range of behavior one might investigate... A third approach to the definitional problem suggests that a political act is corrupt when the weight of public opinion determines it so.” (Malec, 13) Based on any of these definitions, the act of stealing through the political process can be referred to as an act of corruption which ultimately damages the individual interest. Though there is an act of crime or stealing in both scenarios, the actual criminal differs – the mugger Sam Slim is the direct criminal in the first case whereas it is the political process that causes crime in the second scene. The stealing through the political process is not morally any less reprehensible than stealing done individually – in fact, it is more reprehensible. The gravity of the circumlocutory act of stealing by the political process is much heavy than that of the direct act of stealing done individually. Therefore, an understanding of the two scenarios on the basis of the effects of corruption helps one in determining the more serious act of stealing. Thus, according to Rogow and Lass, “a corrupt act violates responsibility toward at least one system of public or civic order and is in fact incompatible with (destructive of) any such system. A system of public or civic order exalts common interest over special interest; violations of the common interest for special advantage are corrupt. (Rogow and Lass, 132-33) Therefore, the more detrimental act of stealing is the one done through the political process which has left more serious effect on the real injured party. The burglary by the individual, i.e. the mugger Sam Slim, does damage the interest of the victim for which he criminal is punished legally. However, the act of snatching which is done through the political process not only damages the interest of the sufferer, but, more gravely, coerces him to the state of the ‘criminal’, making the impact of corruption twofold. There is no moral justification to such act of snatching by the political parties and individual depending on the more general cause of political process. Therefore, stealing through the political process is morally more reprehensible than stealing done individually. On the strength of the arguments about the stealing through the political process one may proceed to the more imperative proposition that regular political expropriation of another individual’s income is exactly similar to slavery. In the two scenarios presented in the case study, the first scenario illustrates the exploitation of personal interest by an individual whereas the second scene gives example of the assault of personal interest by the political process which damages the cause of individual liberty thoroughly. The political process of corruption and stealing results in the assault of individual liberty which is similar to the state of slavery. “Against the backdrop of this seemingly irresistible process, Weber sees the striving for democratic political expropriation of political or economic means not merely as unfeasible, but also as a threat to his concept of individual autonomy and personhood equal to the threat posed by the reduction of politics to bureaucratic domination. For Weber the distinctive ‘business’ of politics cannot be reversed; it can only be countered...” (Breiner, 150) Therefore, one of the major impacts of such regular political expropriation is the curtailment of individual liberty and the assault of personal freedom and this state of political expropriation is not any better than that of slavery. Political expropriation has historically been linked with the power of the superior individual or group which controls the actions by other individuals. Individual freedom and liberty is given no priority and the life of individuals becomes similar to that of slaves. “Everywhere the development of the modern state is initiated through the action of the prince. He paves the way for the expropriation of the autonomous and ‘private’ bearers of executive power who stand beside him, of those who in their own right possess the means of administration, warfare, and financial organization, as well as politically usable goods of all sorts. The whole process is a complete parallel to the development of the capitalist enterprise through gradual expropriation of the independent producers.” (Weber et al, 82) In the modern political process of expropriation of another individual’s income, one finds the most modern development that inaugurates the expropriation of the common man of their economic power and interests. The individual liberty is no more valued and the situation is similar to slavery. In short, the regular political expropriation of another individual’s income, which is slowly becoming a general fact, is exactly similar to slavery. Conclusion The case study “Sam Slime” presents two essential scenarios in which the individual interest and liberty is assaulted by the act of stealing – in the first scene, it is done individually whereas it is done through the political process in the second scene. A profound analysis of the case study based on economic theory and ethical philosophy reveals three critical points: (1) there is significant commonalities between the two scenarios presented in the case study which refer to the differences and similarities between them, (2) stealing through the political process is morally more reprehensible than stealing done individually, and (3) regular political expropriation of another individual’s income is exactly similar to slavery. Significantly, the commonality between the two scenarios is that the same person is the real sufferer – he is the victim in the stealing by the individual and the actual sufferer in the snatching through the political process. There is a breakdown of this commonality in the fact that the individual who is acknowledged as the ‘victim’ in the Scene 1 turns out to be the ‘criminal’ in the Scene 2 and the difference is that the act of stealing done by individual in the first scenario becomes an action done by the political process in the second scenario. In conclusion, stealing through the political process is morally more reprehensible than stealing done individually and regular political expropriation of another individual’s income is exactly similar to slavery. Works Cited Breiner, Peter. Max Weber & Democratic Politics. New York: Cornell University Press. 1996. P 150. 18 March, 2009. . Malec, Kathryn L. “Public Attitudes toward Corruption: Twenty-five Years of Research.” Ethics and public administration. H. George Frederickson. (Ed). M.E. Sharpe. 1993. 18 March, 2009. . Rogow, Arnold A., and Harold D. Lasswell. Power, Corruption and Rectitude. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1963. Weber, Max et al. From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Hans Heinrich Gerth, Charles Wright Mills, Bryan S. Turner. (Ed). New York: Routledge. 1991. P 82. 18 March, 2009. . Read More