<p>Math Prof, </p>
<p>Your post was interesting. However, I really don't think there is an absolute morality that is observed by a majority, anymore. Unless you view this as provided by some sort of higher power, which many people no longer do, or believe in an existential path of doing the right thing in a vaccuum (my own position), then the only absolute lies in the written law, as you imply (which is also open to interpretation.) Hence, the only "wrong" is to be caught.</p>
<p>In conversations with teenagers about cheating, I have, as I said before, been amazed that they really, truly, do not understand why cheating might be wrong. They feel that, of course, the end justifies the means, and anything that benefits an individual (themselves) can't be wrong. Since this moral void leaves only rules and regulations to define "right," in a manner that carries consequences but NOT meaning, to anyone, then it makes sense that cheaters only see themselves as "wrong" if caught. </p>
<p>Eureka, I get it! For the first time, I guess I can really see this. But it conveys such emptiness, it is hard to grasp for those of us who grew up with more idealistic notions, however disillusioned over the years. Once again, I feel sympathy for this situation, even though it is disturbing. There are reasons for this to have happened, which have been discussed by everyone, and the pendulum will no doubt swing back at some point- at least, I hope.</p>
<p>I read a book by an anthropologist about a tribe in some part of Africa, called the "Ik", as I remember. This author had written a previous book on the pygmies, and portrayed them as a beautiful group, very moral, a cooperative society that helped the weak and raised children with care. Leaders were respected for their wisdom, and the society was orderly but free. Food was plentiful and the rain forest provided a secure and pleasant life, at that time. </p>
<p>The Ik, on the other hand, lived on lands that had been decimated by drought, and there was not enough food for everyone. So even eating was competitive. They stole food from the mouths of their children and from the elderly, left weaker members to die, and generally each person looked out for him or herself, in the most ruthless way. When the anthropologist went away for a few days, he tied down his tent to deter stealing, but they still managed to get in and take his things.They appeared to be completely amoral, and there was complete moral chaos in their lives.</p>
<p>What was the difference between these tribes, and how does it relate to this discussion? I could feel sympathy for the Ik, and so did the author, despite his obvious disgust, at times. There are all kinds of reasons for the breakdown of morality w/the Iks, because of hunger, deprivation, a breakdown of order and law, and sheer instinct for survival, which apparently even superceded taking care of their young. So, does our society feel empty like that, to anyone? Are we, in some way, more like the Ik than the pygmies (in a much milder form of course, and I am not suggesting that cheating is the same as starving our babies!)? </p>
<p>Does morality depend on having enough sustenance, physical and psychic, as a baseline? Our kids have enough food, but are there other things that have really gone wrong, that leave them deprived of something essential?</p>
<p>It is necessary to say, there are exceptions: even among the Ik, there were individuals, hungry themselves, who would sneak food to children or the elderly, at great risk to themselves.</p>
<p>Laws and rules can provide order and stability, but that is different from authentic morality, which may or may not match the rules. Totalitarian regimes, which are certainly orderly, define rightness by what benefits the regime (in the same way, perhaps, that cheaters are defining rightness by benefit to self). There is a parallel, in that, without the idealism of democracy, morality is defined, as you say, by "utility," just as, in the absence of idealism, on an individual level, morality is defined by "utility" and cost/benefit ratios. </p>
<p>Under a totalitarian regime, individuals are relieved of some moral responsibility. They are just doing what they have to do to survive. Is it possible that some of the posters who defend cheating, feel the same way? By talking about the tyranny of inept schools and teachers, and parents who pressure about grades, and all those other stresses kids are under, is there a similar feeling of not being free enough to be responsible?</p>
<p>Even under oppression, however, there are always individuals who maintain an inner sense of what is right, and who act, against their own self-preservation, for the good of others and the community. Their actions are not defined by utility, but by higher goals. These are resisters to Nazi Germany, people who stood in front of tanks in Beijing, civil rights workers, and so on. I think that some of the non-cheaters are made of the same stuff (on a less dramatic scale, of course, for the time being), meaning, they have some inner sense of what is right, regardless of what the culture is telling them, regardless of any cost or benefit lost to themselves. </p>
<p>The goals of getting ahead, making money, winning in competition, outsmarting authority figures, most of all, getting benefits for oneself instead of the community, have supplanted goals of doing the right thing no matter the cost, cooperation and consensus, humility, hard work, and selflessness. Does that sound like the Ik, or the pygmies? The Ik also did not seem to have any awareness of doing anything wrong: how can it be wrong to try to survive? (How can it be wrong not to do anything to get into Harvard?)</p>
<p>At the same time, there are people who are choosing to resist cheating. I think the difference might be that, somewhat like the few Ik who fed others, and the Nazi resisters, the non-cheaters have some very strong feelings of responsibility to others. I think that some people just have sort of a cosmic sense of how the actions of each person affect the whole, as if we are all holding up a building on our shoulders, and if too many people walk away, it will all fall down- just as it did with the Ik.</p>
<p>Human beings have not changed. Evolution moves too slowly for that. We're not all that different from primitive humans who need to ensure that the species survives. And believe me, I am one of those people, and I am totally sympathetic, as I have said, to the flaws we all share. </p>
<p>But, once again, it is just so heartening to read the posts of those young people who are not cheating. In closing, I guess I can anticipate that some people will write to say that cheating is also a form or resistance to oppression. I can see that too. But in the long run, the real resistance lies in not cheating, and I do believe that many benefits will accrue, eventually, that cannot perhaps be measured or described, to those who do not cheat.</p>