Is Copying Homework Justifiable When Overwhelmed by Schoolwork?

[loseyourname]

No it makes perfect sense. If a goal is worth achieving the means are, in the context of achieving that goal, irrelevant whether they're socially acceptable or not.

How can you say that? Making a six figure salary is a goal worth achieving to me, but not by becoming a hit man. Eating a lollipop is a goal worth achieving, but not by stealing it from a four-year old. There is always a limit to what means are acceptable in the achieving of any goal.

 

[Smurf]

The argument only applies to the point of it being socially acceptable. I can't remember everything but as far as I know the only arguments against cheating are crap like "even white lies set society back" and "its just wrong" or something like that. Hardly a reason.

If becoming a Hitman was required to cheat on his english paper, that's a reason not to cheat. It being socially unacceptable, is not.

 

[Smurf]

I think to say "a goal worth achieving" begs the question - achieve by what means?

No it doesn't, it encompasses the means. The means should be seen as a cost to the goal. If you want to become a millionaire but the only way to become that is (hypothetical) to become a genocidal maniac then you're goal is to become a millionaire genocidal maniac. Do you really want to be a genocidal maniac millionaire? I don't really, therefore it's not a goal worth achieving.

If you want to have sex, but the only way to do that is to be handsome then you have to become a handsome-gets-laid-guy. Win/Win. It's a goal worth achieving.

 

[Hurkyl]

[cheating] being socially unacceptable, is not [a reason to cheat].

Sure it is. If I wanted to be socially accepted, and cheating was socially unacceptable, then I shouldn't cheat.

Furthermore, if I wished to be a moral person, I also should not cheat.

 

[Greg825]

Either I'm missunderstanding something, which I think is probably happening, or

No it doesn't, it encompasses the means. The means should be seen as a cost to the goal.

contradicts

If a goal is worth achieving the means are, in the context of achieving that goal, irrelevant whether they're socially acceptable or not.

If becoming a Hitman was required to cheat on his english paper, that's a reason not to cheat. It being socially unacceptable, is not.

This is a simply matter of opinion. If "he" had no problems becoming a hitman, the requirement of becoming a hitman would not be a reason for him not to cheat. Someone who thinks cheating being socially unacceptable is a reason not to cheat does so because this person values social acceptance. If I'm interpretting you correctly, you don't value social acceptance and thus it's not a reason for you not to cheat. This makes sense, but doesn't lead to the conclusion that social acceptance isn't a reason for anyone.

In general I don't value social acceptance but I value progress and I associate honesty with progress. Thus I don't cheat.

edit: looks like I might've ended up repeating previous posts.

 

[Smurf]

Sure it is. If I wanted to be socially accepted, and cheating was socially unacceptable, then I shouldn't cheat.
Furthermore, if I wished to be a moral person, I also should not cheat.

Why is cheating immoral?

 

[Hurkyl]

Why is cheating immoral?

Because our culture considers it to be so.

There are several ways you can approach this question, but I think the above follows from all of them, so I'll go with that.

 

[Smurf]

I thought there was a general consensus in this forum that moral relativism was bunk.

 

[Rasine]

the greatest challenge is the separate the good from the lesser good.

if you ever have to comtempalte if what you are doing is worng, automatically conclude that is it becuase you know in your logical mind that is it and that is why your are questioning it.

 

[Dawguard]

the greatest challenge is the separate the good from the lesser good.
if you ever have to comtempalte if what you are doing is worng, automatically conclude that is it becuase you know in your logical mind that is it and that is why your are questioning it.

What you are saying is that your insticts will always tell you acuratly when you are doing something wrong. I, from experience, know this is wrong, as I am sure do many other people. There were often times I would have done something wrong, until somone confronted me. Thinking it through, I came to the logical conclusion that it should not be done. The opposite has also been true.
Another approach to this is possible, and that is if two people think about the same thing, and one comes to the conclusion it is absolutely wrong, and the other absolutely right. Neither one can be correct at once, so simply acting without questioning your behavior, be it for good or evil, should not be done.

 

[Jameson]

Because our culture considers it to be so.
There are several ways you can approach this question, but I think the above follows from all of them, so I'll go with that.

After thinking about it, I've actually changed my mind about cheating and I do consider it immoral, but certainly not for that reason.

How can you justify this argumentum ad populum statement?

 

[Moonbear]

I'm going to jump into this discussion without having read all the posts in it.

I see two problems with copying answers for homework, one which I find morally wrong, and one which I do not. The one that is morally wrong is that things like scholarships, college admissions, etc., are based on your relative ranking in your class. If you have cheated and not earned your ranking, but rather let someone else do the work for you, then someone who did work for their grade, but wound up with a lower rank for it is hurt for it. The not-so-morally wrong side of it is that you cheat yourself of an education. From that perspective, if you want a substandard education, that's your choice for yourself.

However, the "justification" in the first few posts that the cheating is okay because you know it anyway and it saves time doesn't fly with me. If you know it all that well, it won't take you any longer to do the work yourself than to copy it off someone else. If you can't just fly through the work without copying, that tells me you do not know the material all that well and still need to spend time thinking about it.

 

[Jameson]

I agree with your first point completely and I see what you're saying in your second one, but diasgree slightly. I have been given many math assignments which I could very easily do every problem, but because of the number of problems it still would take me an hour or so at least. This doesn't justify cheating, but just because something's easy, doesn't mean it takes 5 minutes.

 

[Hurkyl]

I have been given many math assignments which I could very easily do every problem, but because of the number of problems it still would take me an hour or so at least. This doesn't justify cheating, but just because something's easy, doesn't mean it takes 5 minutes.

What level math? How many problems? What types of problems?

I'm extremely skeptical here, and would like to see just what you think requires an hour to do, when the problems can be "very easily done".

I rather suspect (and this has been one of the themes for the entire thread) that you cannot very easily do these problems: you merely have enough skill that will assuredly allow you to complete each problem.

 

[Jameson]

Ok. Point taken. I just wanted to point out that while some things once understood are quite easy, they can still require lots of time when many problems are given. For instance, a few nights ago I was given the problem

\int x\ln^4(x)dx I was required to do this by parts. Now I know that this problem can be done using multiple iterations of the by parts formula, but it's still quite tedious. So perhaps you are right, I can't do these problems very easily, but I hope you see my point that even well understood things can take a long time.