Morality and Cheating in School

[neurocomp2003]

and when did i say i cheated chronos? I've only probably ever cheated 1% of the assignments I've ever been assigned and most of them are for english writing classes. I've never once cheated in physics/mathematics/chemistry/cs/psychology. Hell I even barely passed QM because i thought it was amoral to COPY PREVIOUS EXAM QUESTIONS onto an allowed crib sheet. BUT THEN AGAIN THIS WAS AN EXAM...but 95% of the students in my class had no problem with it...and props to them for getting the marks they did.

I REPEAT Copying homework is not cheating! if a friend is in dire need of copying an assignment inorder to get a passing grade I think it is the moral obligation as a friend to help him/her out. If they need it because they've been swamped with other work a job to financial support themselves through school...I do not see it as an issue. I help them out when i can. Sometimes they may not get the concepts and its not knowledge they need in their program and their made to take it anyways...I'll help them out. Do i first try to teach them sure but its a waste of time. Unless they're in need of actual learning.

So as an external to copying homework, have they done me wrong...I do not think so. Have they done teachers wrong. Perhaps or perhaps the teacher was horrible. Have they done themselves wrong. NO. well maybe it depends on the circumstances, but in dire need they do not do themselves any wrong. Copying homework is neither cheating nor amoral, unless the individual deems it so.

 

[Hurkyl]

I've only probably ever cheated 1% of the assignments

That's still infinitely more often than I've ever thought about cheating on my homework.

I REPEAT Copying homework is not cheating!

And I repeat that it is.

if a friend is in dire need of copying an assignment inorder to get a passing grade I think it is the moral obligation as a friend to help him/her out.

Yes, and that moral obligation is to dissuade him from acting immorally.

If they need it because they've been swamped with other work a job to financial support themselves through school...I do not see it as an issue.

Well, I do. The thing that makes someone an morally upstanding person is that they act morally, even when it's hard. The people, like yourself, who deviate from moral virtues when the going gets rough, demonstrate exactly what it means to not be an morally upstanding person.

(Of course, that's not as bad as the people who habitually act immorally to get ahead when the opportunity arises, but the point is that both are still immoral behaviors)

 

[Lisa!]

and when did i say i cheated chronos? I've only probably ever cheated 1% of the assignments I've ever been assigned and most of them are for english writing classes. I've never once cheated in physics/mathematics/chemistry/cs/psychology. Hell I even barely passed QM because i thought it was amoral to COPY PREVIOUS EXAM QUESTIONS onto an allowed crib sheet. BUT THEN AGAIN THIS WAS AN EXAM...but 95% of the students in my class had no problem with it...and props to them for getting the marks they did.

As you know only a few students are very successful in the future!
Perhaps you're right about your friends that they don't need a knowledge of some courses, but then again I don't consider that moral. You cause they get used to it. I mean first they cheat in unimportant courses, then they think there would be no problem if they even cheat in other courses. And of course you're not the one who gets to decide what course is useful for them and what course isn't!

 

[neurocomp2003]

who decides what is moral?

 

[Lisa!]

That's my question too. I mean I always ask myself "what's moral and what's immoral?" and "who gets to decide about that?". But for sure you don't want your friends wouldn't be an unsuccessful educated person in the future. I mean if he doesn't do his homework by himself, he may not be knowledgeable enough in the future. Anyway I have no comment about specific situation. For example perhpas an engineer don't want to know any thing about history and art, so why should we foce hi to know about them?

 

[Blahness]

Lisa, we're debating if it's moral to cheat on the work if you ARE knowledgeable enough to do it.

And your last sentence is the point of "forced classes" I made earlier, where you are forced to learn something that has no relation to your occupation.

you HAVE to do it

No, you don't. You have a perfectly good option of not doing your homework and receiving a bad grade.

But then you have to suffer for your entire life, having not gotten grades even though you excel at it, ESPECIALLY if it's unrelated to what you're working in!

 

[Hurkyl]

But then you have to suffer for your entire life, having not gotten grades even though you excel at it, ESPECIALLY if it's unrelated to what you're working in!

Incorrect. If you choose not to use homework as a means to demonstrate skill, then there are other ways to do so. I'm a very good example of this -- I have been hired to a fairly competitive job, despite the fact that I only got passable grades in many HS courses, and had to retake several college classes (all because I did not allocate sufficient time for doing homework), and only having a double B.S. as opposed to the typical PhD an applicant would have.

And if that other stuff is unrelated, then a propsective employer wouldn't care about it, right?

And your last sentence is the point of "forced classes" I made earlier, where you are forced to learn something that has no relation to your occupation.

I hope you don't become one of those managers who thinks they only need to know business, as opposed to the technical discipline of those they manage. :tongue:

 

[Loren Booda]

We have a new "class" in society, the "not have to do its." Amorality rises to the top.

 

[Jameson]

Hurkyl and others - I definitely see your points and agree with the justifications. But my question which I feel has not been addressed is that why should one follow a corrupt system?

It seems many people here have there black and white views on morality, but I just have a hard time saying that for every case, this is the right thing to do. Perhaps you don't agree with relative morals on this subject, but can you see the complexities of a given situation? More of a rhetorical question. I know you can.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl and others - I definitely see your points and agree with the justifications. But my question which I feel has not been addressed is that why should one follow a corrupt system?

It hasn't been addressed since, IMHO, it's not relevant.

Not following a corrupt system is one thing.

Using corrupted methods to get ahead in a corrupt system is something entirely different.

(I'm not accepting your allegation of corruptness, but am going along with it for the sake of argument)

 

[Jameson]

So, you're saying that your intentions are what matter? Is that what morality is to you? No sarcasm intended, I'm just interested in your methods of deciding moral from immoral. Would you call lying in general immoral?

 

[Hurkyl]

I do believe intentions are very important, but not the only consideration... I don't see how this connects to the question at hand, though.

I do consider lying, in general immoral. Of course, some lies are worse than others... but still, I generally will not even tell white lies. If a woman looks fat in a pair of jeans and she asks me about it, I'll say yes. (Or maybe dodge the question -- sarcasm is great for that purpose)

Anyways, I'm talking about the current question as if it were black and white because I simply cannot see any gray in it. All of the classical examples of scenarios in the gray area involve preventing something bad from happening, or furthering the greater good.

None of them involve doing something "bad" for personal gain -- in fact, doing something bad for personal gain is precisely one of the major categories of immoral behavior. Personal gain, as stated in the original question, is improved grades. I think, though, that "to get more free time" is a more accurate description.

 

[Sikz]

You are not morally required to do the homework at all.

The reason it might be considered immoral to cheat, then, is that you are CHOOSING to complete it, and doing so deceptively. You are not required to do the homework, you CHOOSE to gain the benefits of doing it-- yet you take those benefits without actually fulfilling their requirements. That would be why it would be considered immoral.

However, you are not choosing to do the homework. Society MANDATES success within the school system; you are not choosing to do the homework, but are being forced to through the simple application of an implicit threat: if you fail to do the homework, you will do poorly in school, and therefore get a bad job without much pay, and therefore have a harder and less happy life than you could otherwise.

You are not morally obligated to honestly obey every demand made upon you by anyone with the power to carry out threats against you. If you have no choice but to do the homework, morality does not apply in its method of completion.



If you are forced by a group of axe-wielding masons to construct bricks, it is not a moral imperative to do so with quality. You're being forced to do something through fear of punishment, and therefore only practical imperatives apply to your carrying out of that something.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I do what your referring to all the time. If, in fact, you get no benefit from doing the work, and you cheat, you are doing nothing wrong. The grey area enters the equation when it comes to determining what work you can cheat on. I cheat on work I shouldn't, but I also cheat on work that is pointless.

Morality is quite complex, so I try not to care too much either way. Your not going to find a supreme moral authority to tell you whether what you are doing is right or not, so I wouldn't bother trying. Is it in your benefit to cheat? If so, by all means, keep doing it - it's unrealistic for anyone to expect you to do otherwise.

I would remind you that many people on this forum are very avid learners and academic individuals. As a senior in High School, I understand where you are coming from; however, the people on these forumsd don't know you. They find it morally improper to pass judgment on this issue when they could be giving you reason to cheat. They have no idea whether you are actually correct as to say the work you copy is pointless. You could just be some high school punk (so to speak) who wants an excuse not to do his work.

Being the nice guy that I am, I have already given you one. But the decision is your own in the end. Make sure you're cheating carefully.

 

[Hurkyl]

but are being forced to through the simple application of an implicit threat

It is no more of a threat than if the local orchestra says I cannot join unless I can pass their tryouts.

You make it sound as if, somewhere, your life story is written as:

"Sikz will get a good job, make lots of money, and have an easy life"

but the mean school board says that if you do not get good grades, they will edit your life story to be:

"Sikz will get a bad job, make little money, and have a hard life"


But that's not the case: nothing is being taken away from you if you do not get good grades, neither now, nor in the future. You aren't entitled to a good lot in life. Nothing you've earned is being denied from you.


What is happening here is that, for whatever reason, you have developed a sense of entitlement for something you have not earned (e.g. a good job). Then, you have deluded yourself into thinking that you're being threatened if you fail to do what's necessary to earn it.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

100% Hurkyl, when i was still in school(elementary-high) it wasn't hard to get good grades even if u r not doing big efforts for that...Regardless of the differences in potential between student, but at college things differed, u need to give it a bit more! I thought I'm smart, i can do it even if I'm not goin to work for it...

But I've learned that i didn't deserve it, i didn't earn that! There r others who made lots of efforts to get tot he same level, and I'm wasting my potential, if I'm really smart.
I felt i didn't deserve what I've had...I felt guilty, and i felt that at least i should show some care. Work is essential, and I've grown up learning many things except that at some point i'll have to work...I've got it late, but better late than never.

Still I don't think I've ever needed to cheat before. But ti's not fair also, it's prazctically the same thing, someone have done all the work and is still ain't goin any further than u...

At some point it compensates, the one who is sued to do the work gets by, and the other stumbles till he learns how to do it...

And it's not hard at all, work, just a bit more effort!

Nothing you've earned is being denied from you.

.

 

[Sikz]

It is no more of a threat than if the local orchestra says I cannot join unless I can pass their tryouts.

You make it sound as if, somewhere, your life story is written as:

"Sikz will get a good job, make lots of money, and have an easy life"

but the mean school board says that if you do not get good grades, they will edit your life story to be:

"Sikz will get a bad job, make little money, and have a hard life"


But that's not the case: nothing is being taken away from you if you do not get good grades, neither now, nor in the future. You aren't entitled to a good lot in life. Nothing you've earned is being denied from you.


What is happening here is that, for whatever reason, you have developed a sense of entitlement for something you have not earned (e.g. a good job). Then, you have deluded yourself into thinking that you're being threatened if you fail to do what's necessary to earn it.

In nature, your survival would depend upon your own abilities to hunt and gather food. Society does not allow this; it is not legal to run around, unemployed and homeless, killing animals and eating berries for your survival. Animal hunting is regimented, land is owned, etc etc.

Society, therefore, has taken away your natural means of survival. You were born into society, as opposed to being one of its founders; there is no way for you to restore life to its natural form.

If society prevents you from surviving in the normal manner, and demands that you do so along its standards, you are being forced. Granted, you don't have to get good grades in school in order to LIVE, just in order to have a good or decent life-- but your natural methods of achieving a "good" life have been taken away too. It might be easier now to achieve a "good" life than it would be in nature, but as logical as that is, it's still just speculation; and the point is that you have no choice in the matter either way.

If a more powerful group takes away your natural rights and demands that you obey its systems in order to obtain what thos rightse previously allowed for, you are not under a moral obligation to obey the mandates of the system. You may not be entitled to a good life, but you are entitled to the ability to seek out a good life in a natural setting; this fundamental and natural right is denied you, so it is now entirely-- morally, anyway-- up to you (with respect to society/"the system") as to how you achieve it.

 

[Hurkyl]

And yet, even if we accept everything you have said, it is still immoral to act immorally in order to get ahead within the system.

Face it, you simply cannot act immorally and expect to have the warm fuzzy feeling of everybody else calling you moral.

 

[Jameson]

Face it, you simply cannot act immorally and expect to have the warm fuzzy feeling of everybody else calling you moral.

Well that wasn't quite the reason I posted this , but I think your point is taken.

I know you're opinion on lying about homework, but what's your opinion on homework being graded? Do you think this is a good system, allocating part of one's grade to homework?

 

[Hurkyl]

More importantly, I don't think it's unreasonable for part of your grade to be based on homework.

But yes, I do think it's a good idea, since I've learned to appreciate how beneficial it is to do problems.

 

[gumbythescientist]

It seems to me that, having homework as part as your grade is unreasonable because some people can learn with just seeing something once while others need repatition, so I think the grade should be based on knowing concepts through test while using whatever means that are necassary to learn so in other words the teacher simply explains the concept to be learned and it is up to the students to use any method to study. As for the oringinal question I think its fine to copy homework as long as it is out of already knowing the subject and not just because you have no work ethic.

 

[Smurf]

How you justify your future is how you will live your life. Not only is cheating ethically wrong, but your heart will suffer from it. If it doesn't, your existence will.

Yes and you're soul will be ripped out of your chest if you miss a test too!

ooooOOOOOooOOOoooooOOOOHHHhhhhHHH!

There's no argument for why cheating is wrong. In the very most you're deceiving your professors who think you actually did the work.

Solution: Tell them the truth when you hand it in.

 

[Hurkyl]

In the very most you're deceiving your professors who think you actually did the work.

What do you mean at most? Shouldn't that be at least?

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I am a senior in high school and I have major problem with homework. My feeling is that the purpose of homework should be to educate, not to waste time. This year I am feeling overwhelmed with the workload of the latter. I do not feel that homework I am given adequately helps me learn the material expected to be known and is superfluous. I would love to simply say to some teachers "I can do well on your tests without your work!" and do so.
Here is the dilemma though.
In order for me to receive my "A" that I want when I apply to colleges very soon, I must comply and turn in that work. If I refuse to do what I'm expected to, I must face the consequences and I am not ready to accept them. So what happens is I copy, copy, copy. I copy homework from anyone that will give it to me.
My question is: Do you think that copying homework is morally and/or ethically wrong? If you accept for the purposes of this discussion that the system of how homework is set up is wrong, are my actions wrong as well?
I would say no. And here's why. I believe that the way my high school has put so much emphasis on rephrasing what's in the bold print of our books for half of our grade is a system which doesn't test real retained knowledge of the subjects. I would call this copying as well, just from a book, not a peer. So I think that if I honestly understand the course, giving the teacher what he/she wants to see by this method is ok.
I waver back and forth on this topic, and I definitely see the other side to my argument. The side I hear most often is that when I submit a paper to my teacher, it is an unspoken contract that I claim to have done this work solely on my own, and that by copying I am lying to him/her.
What are your thoughts on this?
Jameson

Considering the usual ethics of a society like yours. I would say it's wrong. Just like the socraties(sp?) analogy of being in a cell.

By living in your society you (tacitly) promise to obey. Therefore you must follow the laws, the laws of the high school state you have to do your homework or consequences will ensue.

Obey your parents; being in a high school your superiors are your "parents".

And do no harm; by breaking the rules and disobeying you are harming the society, however "small" you man consider this act.

 

[Greg825]

I am a senior in high school and I have major problem with homework. My feeling is that the purpose of homework should be to educate, not to waste time. This year I am feeling overwhelmed with the workload of the latter. I do not feel that homework I am given adequately helps me learn the material expected to be known and is superfluous. I would love to simply say to some teachers "I can do well on your tests without your work!" and do so.
Here is the dilemma though.
In order for me to receive my "A" that I want when I apply to colleges very soon, I must comply and turn in that work. If I refuse to do what I'm expected to, I must face the consequences and I am not ready to accept them. So what happens is I copy, copy, copy. I copy homework from anyone that will give it to me.
My question is: Do you think that copying homework is morally and/or ethically wrong? If you accept for the purposes of this discussion that the system of how homework is set up is wrong, are my actions wrong as well?
I would say no. And here's why. I believe that the way my high school has put so much emphasis on rephrasing what's in the bold print of our books for half of our grade is a system which doesn't test real retained knowledge of the subjects. I would call this copying as well, just from a book, not a peer. So I think that if I honestly understand the course, giving the teacher what he/she wants to see by this method is ok.
I waver back and forth on this topic, and I definitely see the other side to my argument. The side I hear most often is that when I submit a paper to my teacher, it is an unspoken contract that I claim to have done this work solely on my own, and that by copying I am lying to him/her.
What are your thoughts on this?
Jameson

By far the most limitting factor of one's capacity to enjoy what one's doing is oneself. If you find your work uninteresting, make it interesting or find something else interesting to do.

As I too am currently in the process of applying to colleges I've given allot of thought to how fair the selection process is, etc. I have a relatively low GPA but I've come to the simple realization that any college which would be so short sighted as to not see past one or several numerical values isn't a college I would want to attend anyway. Do you think higher educational facilities haven't considered that some (and I stress "some") high schools grades reflect no more than one's ability to churn out mindless work? It's a possibility, I suppose, but I would be pretty surprised given what I've seen.

I think that in the big picture, almost all dishonesty, even "white lies", sets society back.

 

[Smurf]

anything worth having is worth cheating for.

 

[Greg825]

anything worth having is worth cheating for.

Realize that thinking that way denies people that would otherwise be more worthy of having that thing. You may be happier but what does that matter in the long run? It seems to me this view can only result from shortsightedness and egocentricity.

 

[Smurf]

Realize that thinking that way denies people that would otherwise be more worthy of having that thing. You may be happier but what does that matter in the long run? It seems to me this view can only result from shortsightedness and egocentricity.

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.

 

[WhiteWolf]

I would say it is ok in high school, cause if you screw up there your life is pretty much ruined. But college is something you pay for. Therefore, because you pay for that, and is you fail you can just try again, cheating is unexcusable. But high school, it isn't about being honest, it is about doing the best you can with something that you can't really do again. But you have to understand the risk that comes with it. If you get caught, it will hurt worse then if you were honest. So it is really a gamble.

 

[Greg825]

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.

I think to say "a goal worth achieving" begs the question - achieve by what means? If you assume the answer to be "any means" then indeed it would be worth it to cheat to achieve that goal, but what goal is worth achievement by any means? I don't understand how the means are irrelevant, could you elaborate? Suppose the only means imply the impossibilty of achievement of the goal in the first place. If we make a goal to be the creation of a perfect society, and define perfect to mean a society in which all members are irrevocably happy and in conflict with nothing, the means would probably be the elimination of all but 1 member, or maybe even all members. There is then no society. There may be another solution to that specific problem but there may be problems that have no solution at all.

 

[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. :rofl:

 

[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.