20-12-2025 Mains Question Answer

You have witnessed a man rob a bank, but then, he did something completely unusual and unexpected with the money. He donated it to an orphanage that was poor, run-down and lacking in proper food, water, care and amenities. The sum of money would be of a great benefit to the orphanage and the children’s lives would turn from poor to prosperous. What would you do?

20-12-2025

The situation reflects the classic ethical dilemma of ends versus means. While the robber’s intention appears noble, thinkers like Gandhi argued that “Impure means vitiate the purest ends.” Aristotle’s virtue ethics, too, emphasises that moral virtue requires both righteous goals and righteous actions. As a responsible citizen (or officer), one must balance compassion for vulnerable children with upholding the rule of law, which forms the backbone of social justice.

Stakeholders

  1. The robber.
  2. The bank and its depositors.
  3. The orphanage and the children.
  4. Law enforcement agencies.
  5. Society at large (trust in law, security, justice).
  6. The judicial system and welfare institutions.

Ethical Issues Involved

  1. Ends vs Means dilemma: Can a good outcome justify an illegal act?
  2. Justice vs Compassion: Legal accountability vs welfare of underprivileged children.
  3. Rule of law vs moral empathy: Upholding fairness vs acknowledging altruistic intent.
  4. Social trust: If crimes go unpunished, the system weakens.
  5. Misuse of moral justification: Allowing individuals to self-decide when crime is “acceptable.”

Options Available

Option 1: Report the robber to the police, recover the money, and return it to the bank.

MeritsDemerits
  1. Upholds rule of law: Reinforces that crime cannot be justified, regardless of motive.
  2. Protects public trust: Bank depositors’ money is safeguarded; financial system remains credible.
  3. Sets a fair precedent: Prevents others from committing similar crimes claiming “good intent.”
  1. Orphanage loses the funds: Immediate welfare gains for children are reversed.
  2. May appear morally harsh: Punishing someone who acted altruistically can seem insensitive.
  3. Emotional backlash: Public sympathy may lean towards the robber and orphanage.

Option 2: Ignore the robbery because the money is being used for a noble cause.

MeritsDemerits
  1. Immediate welfare improvement: Children gain better food, healthcare, and living conditions.
  2. Robber’s intention rewarded: Encourages socially beneficial acts.
  3. Quick relief: No bureaucratic delays; benefits reach the vulnerable instantly.
  1. Destroys rule of law: Sets a dangerous precedent that crime is acceptable if intentions are good.
  2. Encourages vigilantism/Robin Hood acts: Others may justify illegal acts for “good causes.”
  3. Harms innocent bank depositors: Money belongs to the public, not to the robber.

Option 3: Report the robber, but request leniency and mobilise legal avenues to support the orphanage.

MeritsDemerits
  1. Balances justice with compassion: Crime is addressed legally, but social good continues.
  2. Orphanage can receive assistance legitimately: Through CSR funds, district welfare schemes, donors, NGOs.
  3. Sets ethical precedent: Compassionate administration without compromising legality.
  1. Orphanage may face temporary delay in funds: Welfare improvement slows down.
  2. Public sympathy may complicate case: People may protest the arrest.
  3. Administrative workload increases: Coordinating agencies, donors, legal processes takes time.

Best Course of Action:

  1. Immediately report the robbery to police, providing accurate witness details.
  2. Ensure the stolen money is recovered and returned to the bank.
  3. Request authorities and judiciary to consider the robber’s intention during sentencing, possibly recommending:
    1. Probation,
    2. Reduced punishment, or
    3. Community service.
  4. Simultaneously coordinate with District administration, CSR wings of local companies, NGOs, philanthropists, and Child welfare committees  to fund the orphanage legitimately.
  5. Ensure transparency so the orphanage gets sustained, long-term support — not just a one-time benefit.
  6. Counsel the orphanage management on accessing government schemes for nutrition, health, education, and infrastructure.

This approach ensures that justice is served, the children benefit, and the law remains supreme.

As IPS officer Rajesh Punia once remarked, “Compassion does not mean compromising the law; it means applying the law with a human face.”

The robber’s intention was noble, but society survives on a foundation of lawful conduct. A compassionate yet lawful approach delivers both ethical justice and human welfare, ensuring that righteousness is upheld not only in outcomes but in actions as well.