Ethics or Morality: Cheating on Tests

OB1Shinobi wrote: When could cheating be morally justifiable?

You quote Nietzsche in your signature. What does he say about morality?

Personally, I don't think cheating is ever "morally" wrong. It's unfair maybe, but not "wrong." I mean think about it, you don't think ancient or prehistoric humans ever "cheated" off each other to survive? The Spartans even encouraged thievery in their young men, only punishing them for getting caught, not the actual theft.

You do yourself a disservice by cheating on tests. You might also be doing the person you're cheating off of a disservice. One of my professors this semester has a standing policy that he will fail both the cheater and the person being cheated off of because:
- When it comes to homework, it's impossible to know who the original belongs to.
- When it comes to tests, it's possible that it was a mutual agreement. The only exception to that is if the cheater admits that they were the one cheating and the other didn't have foreknowledge or give consent to be copied off of.

Cheat in his class and get caught, and it's not just your academic career you're screwing over.

Nevermind the fact that when people are willing to cheat on more menial things, it slowly becomes a habit that can spread to more serious things. Instead of not studying for your test, you fail to do a routine safety inspection of your sales floor. No big deal right? You just sign your name anyway, no one will know the difference. Until someone comes along and slips on the wet floor and breaks their hip, an accident that could have been prevented if you had just done your job. Now the store is getting sued and you've lost your job because security footage shows you lied about the floor sweep... It's just a different form of cheating.

Ethics or morality.... The ethics or morality of it are ultimately up to you. You know it's wrong, because you wouldn't try and justify it to yourself with excuses like "just this once." And in the end, no one wins. Even if you pass the test, you've engrained a bad habit that could end up affecting someone else's life later on.

I have read a fair but of Nietzsche but that doesnt mean i agree with everything he said or (especially) that i agree with everything that others say of him lol.
By my reading, Nietzsche basically said that weaklings and cowards will use the pretense of morality to justify their own refusal or inability to act, and that when they become bitter because of their own weakness, they turn spiteful and hateful, and then use the pretense of morality to condemn those who are different, and those who in actuality may be (or are) their moral superiors.

Because of these views many people incorrectly think that Nietzsche believed ALL morality was weak or cowardly, but this is not what he believed. He said that the superior person is the one who persues their genuine deires without making excuses, who develops their own moral code without deferring to the fear of other peoples judgment, and who knows how to let others have their own moral codes without using moral condemnation as a weapon against them. Basically, the superior person "follows their heart" lol and thinks for him or her self, and allows other to do the same.

None of this means that there isnt any moral truth however; we are human beings, not iguanas or hyenas or asteroids, and being human places us within a specific context. The human context brings with it certain basic conditions and..... rules, for lack of a better word. Those basic conditions are further influenced by the varying circumstances of era and culture.
I believe there are basic moral truths which apply to all human beings, but theyre only as permanent as "human beings" are, and we are still changing. Evolution of the species makes cultural evolution possible, and then cultural developments make new evolutionary developments possible (fire is an example).
So, as individuals we percieve ourselves as a single entiity, a fixed point, but in the broader sense our entire species and our societies are always in a state of evolution, transition, of motion. And we have to integrate our basic moral truths to our specific cultural and individual contexts.

Which is why i like to explore the topic of morality: what is the morality behind honest and dishonest test taking? When is it immoral to cheat and when, if ever, is it ok? And whats the difference? Coming up with specific examples of a thing being moral in one instance and immoral in another makes it easier to recognize the actual foundations of morality.

OB1Shinobi wrote: I have read a fair but of Nietzsche but that doesnt mean i agree with everything he said or (especially) that i agree with everything that others say of him lol.

I know that, I was being kind of a butthole. :lol:

By my reading, Nietzsche basically said that weaklings and cowards will use the pretense of morality to justify their own refusal or inability to act, and that when they become bitter because of their own weakness, they turn spiteful and hateful, and then use the pretense of morality to condemn those who are different, and those who in actuality may be (or are) their moral superiors.

Because of these views many people incorrectly think that Nietzsche believed ALL morality was weak or cowardly, but this is not what he believed. He said that the superior person is the one who persues their genuine deires without making excuses, who develops their own moral code without deferring to the fear of other peoples judgment, and who knows how to let others have their own moral codes without using moral condemnation as a weapon against them. Basically, the superior person "follows their heart" lol and thinks for him or her self, and allows other to do the same.

Interesting. I'll admit, I haven't read all that much of Nietzsche's writing (yet). I do have some idea of how he felt about most moral systems though.

"Whatever is done for love always occurs beyond good and evil."

"Fear is the mother of morality."

None of this means that there isnt any moral truth however; we are human beings, not iguanas or hyenas or asteroids, and being human places us within a specific context. The human context brings with it certain basic conditions and..... rules, for lack of a better word. Those basic conditions are further influenced by the varying circumstances of era and culture.
I believe there are basic moral truths which apply to all human beings, but theyre only as permanent as "human beings" are, and we are still changing. Evolution of the species makes cultural evolution possible, and then cultural developments make new evolutionary developments possible (fire is an example).

Sure, morality is impermanent and subjective to culture and context. Morality is an idea, not a fact of nature.

So, as individuals we percieve ourselves as a single entiity, a fixed point, but in the broader sense our entire species and our societies are always in a state of evolution, transition, of motion. And we have to adapt our basic moral truths to our specific cultural and individual contexts.

Why should the superior man or woman have to adapt their morality to fit cultural contexts? By dint of their superiority aren't their morals actually "better?"

Which is why i like to explore the topic of morality: what is the morality behind honest and dishonest test taking? When is it immoral to cheat and when, if ever, is it ok? And whats the difference? Coming up with specific examples of a thing being moral in one instance and immoral in another makes it easier to recognize the actual foundations of morality.

Perhaps this is a topic best discussed by those who are not moral nihilists...:lol:

Avalonslight wrote: You do yourself a disservice by cheating on tests. You might also be doing the person you're cheating off of a disservice. One of my professors this semester has a standing policy that he will fail both the cheater and the person being cheated off of because:
- When it comes to homework, it's impossible to know who the original belongs to.
- When it comes to tests, it's possible that it was a mutual agreement. The only exception to that is if the cheater admits that they were the one cheating and the other didn't have foreknowledge or give consent to be copied off of.

Cheat in his class and get caught, and it's not just your academic career you're screwing over.

Nevermind the fact that when people are willing to cheat on more menial things, it slowly becomes a habit that can spread to more serious things. Instead of not studying for your test, you fail to do a routine safety inspection of your sales floor. No big deal right? You just sign your name anyway, no one will know the difference. Until someone comes along and slips on the wet floor and breaks their hip, an accident that could have been prevented if you had just done your job. Now the store is getting sued and you've lost your job because security footage shows you lied about the floor sweep... It's just a different form of cheating.

Ethics or morality.... The ethics or morality of it are ultimately up to you. You know it's wrong, because you wouldn't try and justify it to yourself with excuses like "just this once." And in the end, no one wins. Even if you pass the test, you've engrained a bad habit that could end up affecting someone else's life later on.

Thank you, Ava. Very practical outlook and very well said. It is "bad" because it does us a disservice. That was basically what I was trying to say. Cheating doesn't really do the cheater any substantial good, they're only robbing themself of the opportunity to learn.

And good point about cheating on a test potentially leading to other forms of "cheating."

Nevermind the fact that when people are willing to cheat on more menial things, it slowly becomes a habit that can spread to more serious things. Instead of not studying for your test, you fail to do a routine safety inspection of your sales floor. No big deal right? You just sign your name anyway, no one will know the difference. Until someone comes along and slips on the wet floor and breaks their hip, an accident that could have been prevented if you had just done your job. Now the store is getting sued and you've lost your job because security footage shows you lied about the floor sweep... It's just a different form of cheating.

The ethical issue here is failing to inspect the floor, as per your agreed to duties to do something (whether it is for safety is largely beside the point, but I guess would make it more attractive for drama's sake)

the signing of the document is....bureaucratic arse covering bullshit.

If i DO inspect the floor, but then DON'T sign the document, have I failed in any moral fashion?


ANYWAY, because I love you, and I love Pratchett, we'll crack out some Sam Vimes in support of your argument.

His Grace, His Excellency, The Duke of Ankh; Commander Sir Samuel Vimes wrote: “And if you did it for a good reason, you’d do it for a bad one. You couldn’t say “we’re the good guys” and do bad-guy things.”

Lykeios wrote: I know that, I was being kind of a butthole. :lol:

:lol: no worries

Interesting. I'll admit, I haven't read all that much of Nietzsche's writing (yet). I do have some idea of how he felt about most moral systems though.

"Whatever is done for love always occurs beyond good and evil."

"Fear is the mother of morality."

If you havent read the broader work, how do you know those quotes really mean what you think they mean? "God is dead" is one of the most famous Nietzsche quotes ever and people often assume he was saying something very different from what he was really saying. Im not exactly disagreeing with the implied interpretation, im just saying that single line quotes werent always written with the same meaning they are later used to express.

Sure, morality is impermanent and subjective to culture and context. Morality is an idea, not a fact of nature.

Please bear with me on this, id like to explore the "facts of nature" as i understand them.

If you could access "GodTube" and watch a time-lapse video of (in wizard of Oz voice) The Whole Process of Cosmic Existence from Beginning to End, following the universe from its "birth" at the Big Bang, to its "death", when black holes have devoured EVERYTHING, somewhere within that would be a teeny tiny insignificant little blip of images of the development of what we currently call "the milky way". If you slowed that down, somewhere within it would be another insignificant little blip called "earth". And if you slowed THAT down, you could get (among other things) another little blip called "life on earth".

We know that little blip would begin with single celled organisms. We dont know what it will look like at the end. Somewhere in there is another tiny blip called "mammals" and another within that called "primates" and another withinthat called "humans" and none of these are fixed, permanent entities. In a way, they are totally arbitrary points, freeze frames on a seemingly infinite and ever-changing process called "evolution". This is a basic misconception that almost everyone has about it: we are not an end product. Everything in nature (and the universe itself) is in a state of flux. If you look at it at any given point in time, what you see is a temporary image within an ongoing process.

Planets and stars are governed by a certain set of "facts" such as mass and gravity and the strong and weak forces and radiation and.. blah blah blah. Here on earth, LIFE ITSELF has a whole new set of facts, cells, homeostasis, reproduction, blah blah blah. And each individual form of life has yet another new set of facts...
Plants have special "plant facts", like photosynthesis, making them differet from animals, and trees have special "tree facts" making them different from other plants like grasses or flowers, and redwoods have special "redwood facts" making them different from other trees.

And humans have special "human facts" that make us different from other animals and other mammals. One of our "human facts" is CULTURE. Whats culture? Its all the stuff that human beings come up with over time. Every new thing is built upon or emerges out of the foundation- the cultural context -that already exists, having been built by others. That requires COOPERATION, and thus, MORALITY.

You cannot have culture without cooperation, and morality is what allows cooperation to happen and to be fruitful: its the set of agreements, beliefs, and behavior patterns that make it possible for humans to work together. When humans work together long enough, they create culture. As culture evolves, we learn better ways of working together (morality evolves), which drives us into more highly developed cultures, with yet more highly developed moralities.

You can say that morality isnt a "fact of nature" but are human beings "facts of nature"? Morality is a fact of the human condition, so its as much a fact of nature as we are.

Why should the superior man or woman have to adapt their morality to fit cultural contexts? By dint of their superiority aren't their morals actually "better?"

When i say "cultural contexts" i mean the immediate circumstances each of us finds ourselves in, right now, as a consequence of being who we are. We were born in a specific body, in a specific family, within a specific culture and various subcultures, and everything about our lives is nested within that, and arises out of it. We can move around and make choices that separate us from the circumstances of our births, but theres nowehere we can go that is free of some pre-existing cultural context....except death, probably.

I was saying that we have to understand our own morality and use that to make our own honest, personal moral choices about what to do in any given situation. I didnt mean we have to accept anyone elses morality.

Perhaps this is a topic best discussed by those who are not moral nihilists...:lol:

Lol, perhaps. But are we moral nihilists? Im definitely not. I think that youre not either, because if you were, then you wouldnt have any problem with nazis, provided they stayed away from you and yours. Certainly you wouldnt be offended at the IDEA of nazism. Or genocide, or rape, or any other moral repugnance.

Okay, so morality is a part of culture. Sure. That doesn't change the fact that "good" and "evil" or "good" and "bad" are largely arbitrary. The only "moral" system I'd ever even consider accepting is one that suggests that there are certain actions that are conducive to maintaining a society and certain actions that are not conducive to maintaining a society. For now, I'll stick to my own ethical "code" which is fairly fluid and takes situations on a case by case basis.

I can be against fascists and nazis without believing they are "morally" wrong/bad/evil. Racism is a holdover from a prehistoric past that should no longer have any place in our modern societies. That isn't to say I believe it is morally wrong. I can be shocked and appalled by the behaviors of others without decrying them as evil or bad or what-have-you. I can admire the behaviors of others without praising them as good or noble or what-have-you. I do not believe in evil or good. They're arbitrary judgements made by subjective human beings, which, despite all our evolution, are still animals and always will be no matter how much we advance.

Also, as far as the whole evolution thing goes: Evolved traits do not guarantee survival.

Sure, we've evolved to cooperate and to be highly intelligent. That doesn't mean that those very traits won't end up destroying us (or possibly the entire biosphere). If we haven't evolved out of racism (which we clearly have not) yet have gained the ability to bomb the planet into nuclear winter or worse at the press of a few buttons and the turn of a few keys we clearly have a long way to go.

I'm not always optimistic about our chances of survival. Especially considering we can't even figure out a way, even with all our "cooperation" and intelligence, to feed all the humans we've already filled the earth with and that we're still freely reproducing despite that. For all our evolution we're still slowly destroying the only planet we know of that can support life.

But, I've derailed this thread enough.

Cheat or don't cheat, it's really no skin off my nose whether you pass legitimately through hard work or through peeking at another's work (except, perhaps, on things like driving tests and med school exams, which could potentially affect me). You're really cheating yourself out of knowledge by cheating on a test instead of studying for it.

Cheating or falsify information is in our doctrine. I would advise against any forms of cheating regardless your failing a test or class or not. If your lazy and don't do your work then I am sorry my friend you deserve to fail your class there is a lesson in itself.

It's no different than our IP and that is why we have the Knights and the Council check the IP for plagiarism and have some assignments sourced where they found their information. If your caught to be in plagiarism you fail your IP.

Just my opinion it's not okay in my book to cheat. In the end your cheating yourself.

Thank you all for this wonderful discussion!
I just wanted to quickly address that I am not in a situation like this. After reading a few of the replies I had this feeling that I may have come across in my original post that I was in this situation!
Sorry for any misunderstanding! May the discussion continue *bows*