The Tribunal of Conscience

Image Credits-Pinterest

INTRODUCTION

This play revolves around a dilemma faced by Murali, a student from a humble background studying at an Ivy League University on scholarship. The environment in his university is tense since most of the people are protesting Israel’s aggression against Palestine, which they deem unjust. However, Murali is torn between two alternatives: joining the protest could  jeopardise his scholarship and future, yet remaining silent feels morally compromising.

This play takes place in a metaphysical space- a ‘Tribunal of Conscience’- where Murali is confronted by two opposing voices: Prudence and Kant. Prudence represents a consequentialist or a posteriori perspective, urging Murali to consider the tangible outcomes of his actions. She warns that risking his scholarship for a cause, however just, may not be worth the personal cost.

Kant, by contrast, presents a deontological framework rooted in universal moral law. He propounds his universality test, asking Murali to question himself: What if my action  becomes a universal rule? If the maxim behind an action could be willed universally and still uphold moral law, then that action becomes a duty. Kant argues that, while creating personal exceptions may seem beneficial in the short term, such exceptions ultimately erode the moral fabric of society. His views stand in contrast to utilitarianism. He presents a priori take on Morality. He opposes supporting the protest due to sympathy for Palestine or peer pressure. Rather, he advises Murali that true moral action arises solely from a recognition of duty, irrespective of the personal cost, and without regard for emotional inclinations.

Scene 1: The Hostel Room

(Lights up on a modest hostel room. Murali is seated at a desk covered with books, open tabs on a laptop, a printed protest flyer, and a formal scholarship renewal letter.)

Murali: (staring blankly) The protest is tomorrow. Everyone's going. Should I participate and risk losing my scholarship? But my family can’t pay anything.

(He turns to the protest flyer.)

Murali: (angrily) But this war... It's wrong. They’ve bombed hospitals. Children. Civilians. How can I be silent? What does that make me?

(Long pause. He puts his head down on the desk, exhausted. Lights flicker. The sound of a distant ticking clock fades into silence.)

Image Credits-Pinterest

Scene 2: The Tribunal of Conscience

(The room has transformed into a grey, timeless chamber. Two people are seated in the front: Kant and Prudence. Murali stands at the centre, blinking in confusion. He sees a board in front of him, which reads, “Don’t say ‘can’t to Kant’s Reason’.” A low rumble announces the Tribunal.)

Kant: (with gravitas) You have been called to judgment. Not by law, not by fear, but by yourself. Speak now, lay your doubts bare.

Murali: (hesitating) I didn’t ask for this war. I didn’t vote for these leaders. But I’m here now, and I see the headlines every day. Hospitals. Children. Cities flattened. And the people at this university are standing up. They’re marching. Speaking out against this unjust war. But me? I hesitate. Because if I go out there, and my name is on some report. I might lose my scholarship. My entire future.

Murali: (wrings his hands) I come from a family that barely manages its day to day. My father’s health is bad. Every month, I send money. Not much, but enough to matter. If I get expelled or deported, who’s going to take care of them? But I can’t just close my eyes to injustice. That feels like betrayal too.

Prudence: (gently) So, you see. Your survival is not selfishness. It is a duty too. You keep this scholarship not to indulge, but to uplift your family.

Murali: (sharply) But is preserving my family and my future worth watching others suffer and do nothing?

Kant: (firmly) My child, reason exists not to serve your selfish goals, but to serve good will.

Murali: But who are you?

Kant: (with calm authority) I am the advocate of Reason. I speak for the moral compass that is present in every individual, including you. You encounter me daily, in every interaction, when you think about what is the right thing to do. (pauses, then continues his previous argument) Nature is always purposive. It gives us everything for a reason. I ask you to think about why Morals were given to humans?

Murali: (pensively) Maybe to preserve ourselves, to provide for our welfare.

Kant: (leaning slightly forward) Okay, let’s assume you had no moral values. Would you even be thinking about this war, given that it is happening in some distant country and, thus, is not affecting you in any manner? Or about this protest, when you have a very high risk of losing your scholarship?

Murali: Probably not; my instincts must have dictated me not to participate in this protest, given that my benefit clearly lies in protecting my scholarship.

Kant: (firmly) Thus, Murali, Morals were given to us not for our self-preservation, for our instincts do that job quite well. Morals were given to develop a ‘good will’, and its worth surpasses everything. (pauses meaningfully) A good will is based on Reason, which guides the human being towards their moral ‘duty’ rather than personal satisfaction.

Prudence: (sarcastic) But Mr. Kant, let’s say that Murali joins the protest because he sympathises with the Palestinians or maybe because he fears that his peers would hate him if he fails to support the protest. Would this action be considered guided by your so-called ‘duty’?

Kant: (sternly calm) Certainly not! Just because your act is in conformity with duty, it does not mean it is from duty. An action is considered of the highest moral worth when it is motivated solely by duty and not by personal gain or inclination. Thus, a truly moral action is one done solely out of respect, for duty. My child, your participation in this protest would only be considered moral if you think protesting is your duty.

Murali: But how do I analyse whether duty demands an action out of me?

Kant: (raising his hand) You just need to ask yourself one simple question, ‘Can you will  that your maxim should become a universal law?’  (paces slowly as he speaks) Let’s apply this framework to your dilemma. What is the maxim that will form if you don’t participate in the protest?

Murali: (thinking aloud) I will not protest injustice if doing so risks my personal welfare.

Kant: (stopping Murali) Now imagine a world where no one speaks against injustice if it carries risk. Would injustice not flourish? Would regimes not exploit silence? Would morality not dissolve into fear?

Murali: (passionately) Yes. That world already exists. In history books. And in today’s headlines.

Kant: (emphatically) Then your maxim fails the universality test. Therefore, it is not moral, and therefore, against your duty.

Prudence: (with urgency) But consequences matter! If you lose your place here, you lose your voice. You can't help anyone from back home.

Kant: (calm, unshaken) You cannot control outcomes. You can  act only from a principle that could hold for all rational beings. That is the dignity of morality. That is autonomy.

Murali: So, if I join, even if it costs me everything, I still preserve my moral self?

Kant: (with gravity) Yes. Because you did not act from fear or desire, but from the recognition of duty. That is what makes the will good.

Prudence: Or you could find a middle path. Write a letter. Talk to the press anonymously. There are other ways. Do what you can without risking everything.

Kant: (looking directly at Murali) Then you must ask: is that path truly what your reason says is right, or is it a compromise disguised as virtue?

Murali: (desperately) What if both voices feel true? I don’t want to betray my family, but I don’t want to betray myself either. Isn’t there a reconciliation?

Kant: The only reconciliation lies in acting from duty, with full awareness of what you are doing. If self-interest happens to align with duty, so be it. But if you act for the sake of interest, and not from duty, you abandon morality.

Murali: But can one really disregard consequences entirely? Isn't duty sometimes blind?

Kant: (gently) Not blind, but principled. Reason gives us clarity, not recklessness. If you act in a way that, if universalised , would lead to contradiction or a world where you could not will, then your action is not moral.

Murali: (dejected) But what if I act and nothing changes? What if the war continues and I lose everything?

Kant: (with quite strength) Then you still acted rightly, and that is the highest achievement for a rational being. The worth of your action lies in the intention, the maxim you follow, not the world’s response.

Murali: Well, I have understood what to do! Thank you, Kant and Prudence. See you at the protest site tomorrow!

(A long silence. Murali stands centre stage, motionless, deep in thought. The grey light dims gradually, leaving only his silhouette as the ticking of the clock resumes softly in the background.)

(Lights out.)

---

By Manav Agarwal

Manav Agrawal is a second-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru. He is interested in political theory, the criminal justice system, and the functioning of the Indian judiciary. Beyond academics, he enjoys watching movies and engaging with contemporary debates on law and politics.

---

References

Kant Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Allen W Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.