Smitty Case Summary

585 Words3 Pages
Smitty’s Dilemma To apply justice in the Smitty case, one has to consider many factors and viewpoints before coming up with the final stand. This is because the concept of applying justice is very wide and, in this case, we have to consider many perspectives and viewpoints that are majorly associated with the moral correctness of Smitty. In this case, from the perspective of ethics, fairness, law and rationality Smitty has the right to own the inherited wealth and should not return the money to the families of those people from whom his father stole. Indeed, Smitty is just an inheritor of his father’s property that as a son, he inherited legally from his father without knowing that it was stolen money. The law allows the children to own and benefit from the property passed from their parents. Secondly, despite the fact that the money was stolen, Smitty cannot be accused because he and his father…show more content…
As per the law, Smitty is a third party and should not be involved in the deals that were undertaken by the first party. This is because according to the case, Smitty inherited the property from his father rightfully and it was his right as a son and successor of his father in the lineage to inherit his father’s property and should not question the eligibility of his father’s wealth. Smitty cannot be sued due to wrongs of his father. This is because his father was an independent party from his son. According to the customs and traditions, the siblings should repossess the ownership of his entire father’s property. In our case here, Smitty repossessed the ownership from his father Dread Pirate Robert, and he never participated in the pirating activities like his father. The ways and activities of Smitty were righteous and morally upright as he involved himself in better caring for his family and even extended his generosity to helping other people. He was a good person in the society and never stole someone’s

    More about Smitty Case Summary

      Open Document