October 21, 2012
Influence of Moral Reasoning
The allegations behind the sex scandal at Penn State are horrible to say the least. However, with a history of abuse dating back to 1998 and an investigation that started in 2009, the actions of those involved in the handling of the case are called into question. In reading the article, “Penn State’s new villain”, written by Buzz Bissinger, there are concerns specific to the actions or lack of actions from Tom Corbett.
According to the article, at the time of the investigation in 2009, Tom Corbett was an attorney general. In office as attorney general although he had been responsible for bringing the case to light, he had done little with regards to ensuring an earlier arrest of Jerry Sandusky. In addition, as governor, Tom Corbett had approved a 3 million dollar grant for potential victims of the sexual abuse. Regardless of the position held by Tom Corbett during the period surrounding the investigation, he was aware of the alleged actions of the accused along with identified victims and failed to respond in way that would be in alignment with those socially acceptable values. I believe that Corbett’s failure to take action was partly due to ethical egoism. His actions were based on the fact that he did not want to do anything that might interfere with his popularity or jeopardize his chances of getting into office as governor. He did not want to jeopardize receiving support for his campaign via financial donations and/or individual backing. I consider his actions to have been self serving. Tom Corbett’s actions or lack thereof, allowed for Jerry Sandusky to remain at Penn State with the possibility that he might continue his pattern as a sexual predator therefore causing additional harm to other minors. With this being the case, I believe that Corbett’s actions qualify as...