In the Macalester student handbook, it is clear that there are consequences for cheating. For those who have witnessed or are aware of cheating incidents, policy states they are expected to report these actions, and witnesses to these events are strongly encouraged to report them. fails to report the incident. However, are students obligated to report cheating? Or is a duty of students to report this bad conduct? To answer these questions, I will first discuss how moral obligations and duties are defined. Next, I will compare them and discuss their differences. Finally, I will apply the examination of differences to determine whether it is a moral obligation or a duty to report cheating.
MORAL OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES
In his article, You Ought To Be Ashamed of Yourself (When You Violate An Imperfect Moral Obligation, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong begins to define moral obligations utilizing a quote of John Stuart Mill. After providing the quote, he explains that Mill makes an effort to separate the obligatory from the good or ideal, stating that Mill believes an obligation is something that one is bound to. He continues writing that Mills advocates that those who violate obligations are eligible for punishments. However, Mill believes an individual’s punishment is not external carried out by third parties, but rather the guilt and shame for the not acting on the situation.
In the same article, Armstrong quotes Mill saying, “‘It is part of the notion of duty in every one of its forms that a person may be rightfully compelled to fulfill it. Duty is a thing that may be exacted from a person . . .” (Armstrong 193). Mills states that duty is more about fulfillment rather than meeting a requirement. He emphasizes that a du...
... middle of paper ...
...id not have another option. Under duress, an individual still has two options of reporting and not reporting, which implies that one is still capable of meeting this moral obligation.
CONCLUSION
Duties state that the focus is to state what one ought to do, not have to do. Duties give people an option and free them from punishment and criticism for not doing what is thought they should have done. Moral obligations states that one is required and bound to meet an obligation. An individual can also be punished for the failure to meet a moral obligation. A witness is not required to report as they are not bound to anyone in the situation or have anyone to be bound to, and, for these reasons, it would be inappropriate if that particular individual were punished externally by third parties. Therefore, when an individual reports cheating, they are fulfilling a duty.
The prima facie duties that William David Ross has listed include duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, and non-maleficence. Duties of fidelity and reparation rest on previous acts that one has performed, and acting on these duties are acts such as promise-keeping (duties of fidelity) and making amends for previous wrongful acts (duties of reparation), while duties of gratitude rest on previous acts that others have performed. There is a duty associated with the distribution of pleasure or good regardless of its recipient, and this is termed as duties of justice. An additional duty rests on the mere fact that there are other beings in this world to whom we can be of assistance to: duties of beneficence. Duties of self-improvement claim that there are intrinsic moral reasons for one to improve oneself and finally, duties of non-maleficence states that there are intrinsic moral reasons to not harm others. Duties are placed on the list only when they have been judged to be basic moral reaso...
For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.
We as a society have acted upon our obligations in the past, such as during World War 2, yet the occasional dose of action is not what we are supposed to desire as humans. We can not say “I will help these people who are being abused today, yet these people yesterday are on their own.”. Moral obligation is not something so fickle as we wish to make it seem. Although the proposal I have left you with is tough to chew on, it is the right principle to act upon if we are to improve human life and live morally good lives.
***Mill spends a substantial amount of time exhibiting his harm principle by saying, “that actions can only be punished when they harm others.”2 I feel that the most primitive and obvious issue is whether Mill’s harm princi...
... that it is one’s responsibility to further the society as a whole by expressing one’s own ideas because doing so is key to preventing society from stagnating and becoming stale. Both authors also have differing views on the role of moral obligation since Marx also claims that morality as a whole is created by the Bourgeoisie to oppress the Proletariat and that it is therefore invalid, whereas Mill claims that moral obligation is one’s self owed debt to express one’s opinion, regardless of the society’s view on it, since not expressing one’s opinion would leave one’s character undeveloped. Despite their differences in view on the content of social and moral obligation, both authors agree on the point that everyone is ultimately responsible for their own decisions, and insofar as these decisions affect others, they are also responsible for the state of their society.
For Mill, the freedom that enables each individual to explore his or her own particular way of life is essential for a generous and diverse development of humanity. The only source of potential within society to further continue human development is the spontaneity or creativity that lies within each individual. Mill has a utilitarian view on freedom. He was especially keen on individual liberty because it allowed the greatest measure of happiness. His concern is not to declare liberty as a natural right but to rather set out the appropriate constraints within ‘Civil or Social liberty’. Civil liberty is defined as the limit society can exert its legitimate power over each individual and social liberty has much to do with a political principle
In order for the insistence that equity and impartiality to hold true to Mill's Utility, we must find a foundation from within his argumentation that will support it. Thus we turn to Mill's sanctions, or incentives that he proposes to drive one towards the path of Utility. Mill's first sanction, the internal sanction, leads one to act ethically because of the fear of displeasure that might arise from other people if one does not act in this manner. Mill justifies that individuals desire the warmness of others as an incentive to acting unselfishly in the attempt to acquire the greatest good, and fear the dissatisfaction of others. Mill's second sanction, the internal sanction, is in essence an individual's inner conscience. With the assumption that the conscience is pure and free from corruption, Mill implies that satisfaction is brought forth to the conscience when one successfully and ethically commits to one's duties, the duty of Utility. What is undesired is the feeling of dissatisfaction that spawns when one does not act dutifully. In order for this rationale to make sense, one must do what is almost unavoid...
this question with Kant?s treatment of the question of why the CI is binding in
In this final chapter, Christian Miller speaks about cheating. There is a cheating behavior that many people do for various reasons. This assumes that the cheater might not be the one who is advantaged. Most humans today cheat when the opportunities arise. In studies, it is clear that many students cheat while in college. Of the many students who cheat, only a small fraction of them get caught. In a very large group of people, it was seen that only 3 people stated that they have never cheated while in school. In one case, a student found an exam on the printer and mass distributed it to the class and the class finished the exam quickly and scored higher. This made the teacher skeptical and a retake was made. It is clear that cheating is very prominent on college campuses. In an experiment, participants were told that they could only take 5 minutes on a
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
... interests of all are to be regarded equally" (mill, 32). Mill needs this argument so people cannot get away with evil acts such as killing someone for the greater good of society. Even if the majority of society might benefit from having this one-person dead, Mills uses the perfect obligation argument to explain why this is not ethical to do because we all deserve certain rights.
That is not always the case, if the students’ belief is set to always do the right thing it will be done without any hesitation. “Despite the detailed testimony of the student who reported the infraction, the accused student walked free. The student reporting the infraction was socially stigmatized but also didn’t regret taking action.”(Gabor, 1). This also proves that if honor codes are added it can work effectively. Many students want to do the right thing, but sometimes need a little help in the right direction. If cheating is not reported the integrity of the honor code gets damaged severely. If people cheat and they do not report the cheating, the cheater will start to believe that it is okay to cheat and it will become a habit that is not good to have as a
Modern students face many pressures for academic success. They are often unwilling to disappoint their parents or spouses. Some fear that not cheating will weaken a student’s ability to compete with their peers. They rationalize their unethical behavior, unwilling to accept a poor grade, consequently justifying cheating as the only means to that end.
Mill believes individual should be given liberty to do what they want unless they harm others. According to Mill, liberty should not be enforced by law as any imposing would lead to breach of individual liberty. On the contrary, Devlin claimed that if society has the right to make judgments it can also use the law to enforce it. He said that society does have a right to use the law to preserve morality in order to safeguarding social morals. Further Devlin said that the law is not looking for true belief but what is commonly believed by individuals in a civil society as a whole. He said that the judgment of the “right minded person” will prevail and immorality would be something which the those people will consider immoral. For example, murder and theft are prohibited because t...