<p>^^That analogy you used doesn’t really work out. One cheater in many cases won’t make a significant difference in the curve, no matter how high they may score. One donation to a charity does make a difference depending on how much they give. </p>
<p>And I don’t have to make a choice between cheating or snitching. I don’t do either one nor do I “respect” them.</p>
<p>^Integrity is relative. If you do something that you don’t think is wrong, you can still see yourself as having integrity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Integrity is not relative. Perception of integrity is relative.</p>
<p>You can see yourself as having integrity and be totally, laughably wrong.</p>
<p>Goodness gracious 
By stating that there are severe consequences to cheating, I was trying to show that means cheating is wrong. Whether you get caught or not, it’s still wrong.</p>
<p>
That is a good point. The “it doesn’t affect me” analogy still stands, though. You don’t have to abide by my morals, but “it doesn’t affect me” (which seemed to be a majority of the responses) is a pretty flimsy reason not to take action.</p>
<p>
That was directed at the people who were afraid of ruining their reputation by snitching. I was saying that if someone disrespected you for snitching but didn’t disrespect the cheater, that’s pretty childish. And as for the cheater… I couldn’t care less what he/she thinks of me, because I probably think worse of him/her.</p>
<p>This is all kind of stupid. You either would rat someone out for cheating or you wouldn’t. There’s no such thing as universal morals so it’s going to vary from person to person. No one is going to change their mind here.</p>
<p>Also, TCBH, if you think integrity is not relative, that would mean that you must think there is a set of universal morals, which simply does not exist. If someone stole all my stuff and didn’t think it was wrong, I wouldn’t think that their perception of the world was wrong, I would think what they did was wrong because it goes against MY personal morals. I can’t judge others’ morals. </p>
<p>The difference between having all your stuff stolen and ratting someone out for cheating is that when all your stuff is stolen, that person harms you quite a lot. With cheating it is a situation that otherwise would not involve you. If the class is on a curve, there is a SLIGHT bit of support to snitch, but that depends on the size of the class - if it’s a large class and the benefit you would get is really small, then you can’t claim that it’s all about you. But usually small classes don’t have curves and large classes do. (Usually.) The benefit they get is one grade, one time. The cost you get is probably nothing, perhaps half a letter grade if there’s a curve, it’s a small class, and you’re on the cusp. Still, one grade, one time. Miniscule in your whole academic career. If my stuff is stolen that’s a lot more cost to me. When the cost to you is that small, it becomes less about your cost and more about the “principle” of it, the moral side. And that is not okay. (If the person is in all your small curved classes and you’re always on the cusp, well that’s slightly more support. Maybe in that situation it would be okay because it is repeatedly hurting you. But other situations it really barely hurts you.)</p>
<p>But it hardly matters. Cheating isn’t important to me. My morals have nothing to do with that. I would never rat someone out because I won’t screw up anyone else’s life if I can help it. It’s none of my business. I’m not a snitch and I would never budge from that. Nor do I think everyone needs to think the way I do, though I find people who attempt to force their morals upon others ridiculous. </p>
<p>You’re allowed to think whatever you want, but don’t think ANYONE needs to think the same way you do about anything. I’ll admit we need a certain moral code to keep society running and everyone alive (no killing, etc) but I am strongly for as few of those collective morals as possible.</p>
<p>@ThisCouldBeHeavn</p>
<p>“Integrity is not relative. Perception of integrity is relative.”</p>
<p>You’re right. One’s perception of integrity can vary being that there are no set guidelines for this virtue other than subscribing to that which is right. And being that the perception of right and wrong is also relative, whether or not a person perceives themselves or another person to have integrity is dependent on the individual. </p>
<p>And being that one’s perception of integrity is founded on their morals, I think that if people didn’t see cheating as wrong to the extent that it is viewed now, which I think is mostly rooted in the fact that the consequences are so severe for cheating, then integrity or morality won’t factor so much into what makes cheating a big deal.</p>
<p>“You can see yourself as having integrity and be totally, laughably wrong.”</p>
<p>“Wrong” according to you, that is. Because your “perception of integrity” can be infinitely different than someone else’s. </p>
<p>@JeSuis</p>
<p>Why should a person “take action” when they don’t see the merit in it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course there’s a universal morality. The idea that there isn’t is inherently self-contradictory.</p>
<p>But of course it’s going to vary from person to person, since moral perception is highly individual.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You think what they did was wrong. They think what they did wasn’t wrong. Clearly you do think their perception of morality is wrong. The two ideas are totally contradictory. They can’t both be right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that your own idea of morality inherently judges every other idea of morality. Even if you see morality as a set of things that one is allowed to do, the only way to reconcile differences in individuals’ morality is to say that everything is allowed, i.e. nothing is immoral.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Often in the case of a curve, if one person that would be at the bottom moves to the top, one person at each half grade is moved down. So the chances of being affected individually are quite small, but there is a small set of people that are affected in a very real way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Almost every small class I’ve been in has some sort of a curve.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what would you do if someone broke into your room and stole everything of any value?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean a legal code, not a moral code.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly I find your idea that people think cheating is wrong just because it is punished just bizarre.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not wrong according to me. Because I could be that person. Just wrong, period.</p>
<p>@TCBH</p>
<p>I never said that people only think cheating is wrong because it’s punished. I said it wouldn’t be as big of a deal if it weren’t punished so severely. For instance, if a kid knows that he’ll get smacked every time he touches his dad’s wallet, but nothing will happen to him if he goes inside his mom’s purse, he’s obviously going to think it’s more acceptable to go in his mom’s purse.</p>
<p>And yes, wrong according to you. If you were the person that was seen as “totally, laughably wrong”, you could still think that you’re right. There is no “just wrong, period” in the question of integrity and morality. Everyone does not subscribe to the same beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not wrong according to me. I’m not talking about my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not talking about being seen as wrong, I’m talking about being wrong. And yes, someone that’s wrong would still think they’re right. That was my point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course there is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously - but that’s not the issue here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This goes back to post 57. Students wouldn’t think it was as big of a deal. But that wouldn’t make it less important to everyone else.</p>
<p>You are in fact voicing your opinion. We have already established that the perception of right and wrong is relative. Therefore, what’s wrong to one person does not have to be wrong to the next. The difference between fact and opinion is that facts can be proven and are actually universally accepted while opinion is only founded on one’s own perceptions and not actual evidence.</p>
<p>And obviously, the difference of beliefs is exactly what we’re talking about in essence. “Beliefs” being synonymous with “opinions”, which are what we’re sharing.</p>
<p>^“Students wouldn’t think it was as big of a deal. But that wouldn’t make it less important to everyone else.”</p>
<p>So it wouldn’t as big of a deal, but it’s still as important. I’m not understanding how that works. I don’t know, it seems a little “bizarre”…</p>
<p>
Many facts are not universally accepted. In this scenario, nothing is true and nothing is right or wrong. That is the flaw in your logic.</p>
<p>Society has to have some sort of order, and to say one’s beliefs excludes them from the morals that are generally accepted as right, as well as the policies of the university one attends, is absurd. When you attend a university, you sign documentation agreeing to abide by their policies. Breaching that contract should then rightly result in expulsion. It really is as simple as that.</p>
<p>Also, while morality is subjective to the individual, how one chooses to act in said society can not lie outside of the legal system with no consequences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So if someone murders someone else, we shouldn’t punish them, because that would be imposing our morals upon the killer?</p>
<p>Like it or not, there are universal morals. While I agree that “you must not cheat on tests” is not one of them, if your University has rules against cheating, it’s no longer a matter of morals; it’s simply a breach of contract.</p>
<p>That’s why I brought up the code of ethics in one of my posts. I am positive that the college I’m attending next year wouldn’t put up with me cheating on a test.</p>
<p>@zchry </p>
<p>I only pointed out that morals are subjective. So, some people’s morals are going to lie outside of those generally accepted as right. It doesn’t mean that they are excluded from being expected to live by what the majority thinks is right, or generally accepted policies. Obviously, they’re not. But just because something is majorly accepted doesn’t make it right and vice versa. </p>
<p>Contracts are another thing. Contracts give you guidelines, they’re black and white. If someone violates their contract by cheating, they’re in the wrong according to that contract. But my contract doesn’t require me to report it, so it’s up to me if I want to or not. That’s when morals come in. </p>
<p>I personally think it’s wrong to cheat. But I won’t tell on someone who does, I don’t think it’s right or necessary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not my opinion. It’s the only possible logical conclusion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That does not follow at all. You’re conflating perception of right and wrong with actual right and wrong. The first is clearly not universal. The second cannot possibly be anything but universal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not all facts can be proven. Morality is a perfect example of this. But it’s also a famous result of mathematical logic (Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem) that not all true sentence of arithmetic can be proven, and the computability theoretic proof of an analogous theorem essentially works by demonstrating that the set of all true sentences is the most complicated possible set. That is to say that for any subset of the set of true sentences, there will be a true sentence that cannot be deduced from it.</p>
<p>And perception obviously is actual evidence. That’s how science works. And pretty much every other aspect of life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Try reading the sentence again. Your paraphrasing completely missed out the dichotomy that was being made.</p>
<p>ThisCouldBeHeaven, the only possible conclusion that I could make from reading your last post is this…you are very smart :)</p>
<p>People should be reported for cheating. It’s not about morality or about punishing wrongdoers. It’s about creating a society that promotes honesty, hard work, and ability as means to achieve success, rather than an incompetent, inefficient system valuing social status, wealth, or some other irrelevant quality. This can be done in two ways: