7 ms·

That's like saying "stealing isn't morally wrong - inventory control is retailers' responsibility and therefore it's their job to reduce loss".

by s17n 8y ago

jrhurst 8y ago
I have a feeling that people who make misterbowlfingers argument would say that your analogy is also valid.
- s17n 8y ago
  The point is that since similar statements could be constructed about anything ("murder isn't wrong, it's the job of police to prevent me from killing people"), it's a dumb argument, regardless of how you feel about cheating or stealing.
  - sithadmin 8y ago
    No, your approach to reasoning is bad. You're trying to apply a construct from formal logic and apply it to situations that defy description in formal logic. You can't reduce aesthetic and emotional responses into syllogism.
    - s17n 8y ago
      Often, the nuances of the real world defy simple syllogistic reasoning. This isn't one of those times.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Prove it. "Cheating" seems to have huge downsides, on the other hand it reduces friction inside of a rigid system. That is a net positive that stealing a TV from best buy simply does not have.
        tylerhou 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons > "Suppose buyers cannot distinguish between a high-quality car (a "peach") and a "lemon". Then they are only willing to pay a fixed price for a car that averages the value of a "peach" and "lemon" together (pavg). But sellers know whether they hold a peach or a lemon. Given the fixed price at which buyers will buy, sellers will sell only when they hold "lemons" (since plemon < pavg) and they will leave the market when they hold "peaches" (since ppeach > pavg). Eventually, as enough sellers of "peaches" leave the market, the average willingness-to-pay of buyers will decrease (since the average quality of cars on the market decreased), leading to even more sellers of high-quality cars to leave the market through a positive feedback loop."
        Retric 8y ago
        As to your specific argument reducing the implied value of a degree without impacting it's actual value is a net gain to society. Credentials independent of skill forces people to jump through extra hoops. This ends up as a huge drain on society. Anyway you just specified an implied though not supported downside, while ignoring my point that cheating has some minor upsides. Demonstrating that cheating is a dead loss for society is not enough you need to demonstrate it has absolutely zero redeeming qualities allowing for such simple syllogistic reasoning to apply
        nitrogen 8y ago
        > That is a net positive that stealing a TV from best buy simply does not have. A major NYC blackout resulted in a bunch of looting. That looting is supposed to have resulted in a bunch of new musicians getting their hands on good equipment. Those scofflaw musicians invented new musical genres that revolutionized the artform. Sounds a lot like reducing the friction inside a rigid system. Basically, while we might prefer to have people raise integrity to the highest priority, life is complicated and it's sometimes hard to say a wrong thing is 100% wrong.
        Retric 8y ago
        TV's are not musical instruments and where part of my argument specifically because they are not used to create stuff.
- sithadmin 8y ago
  It is a valid analogy, because it confronts reality: there are a huge number of persons with economic incentives to commit immoral or illegal acts, and the state doesn't have the capability to intervene in a majority of cases. I mean, hell, look at SOX. Look at the various anti-money laundering requirements that banks are subject to. The de jure approach here in the world today is to force the corporation to police its own staff and customers.
- usrusr 8y ago
  "Punched him in the face for looking weak." Unfortunately, that attitude isn't half as uncommon as one should hope.
misterbowfinger 8y ago
I don't think the two are comparable. Cheating on a test doesn't "take" anything of intrinsic value from another person, stealing does. Cheating hurts no one. You can argue that cheating puts you ahead of students that work in good faith, systemically, though it's still a bit different. Stealing has implied intent of taking something away from someone, cheating doesn't. You're just trying to get better grades.
- walshemj 8y ago
  devalues the value of the qualifications and hurts those that didn't cheat.
- eecsninja 8y ago
  Agreed 100%. We only think cheating is only "wrong" because it goes against how the people who set up the educational system intend for it to work, e.g. they are short circuiting the system. It has no counterpart in the real world, and cannot be compared to murder and theft. If it were up to me, I'd make the school system results-only -- i.e. it's about how well you can build a project and explain it, not how well you can write up answers. People who think otherwise need to wake up from their K-12-university programming. And in case anyone thinks I'm an uneducated redneck, I am an Asian American overachiever with two engineering degrees from world-renowned universities.
  - nradov 8y ago
    A results-only education system would be preferable and would make some forms of cheating irrelevant. But it suffers from practical cost and scalability obstacles. We're already struggling to adequately fund public education. Are politicians willing to budget for additional teachers to evaluate student projects rather than relying on cheap and simple exams?
    - eecsninja 8y ago
      Maybe not, but companies are capable of assessing prospective employees. For the sake of my future children, that's all that matters to me. Fuck academia.
eecsninja 8y ago
Academic cheating is NOT morally wrong in a general sense. We only think it is because it's drilled into us from a young age by the educational system. But there's really no equivalent of "cheating" in real world industries where it's the results that matter. e.g. nobody cares if you took wrote the software yourself or got it from someone else's library, as long as the software product works. If cheating happens, it is the responsibility of: 1) schools to deal with that accordingly (withhold degrees according to pre-written rules, etc) 2) employers to interview people instead of looking at credentials (something they should be doing anyway).
- matz1 8y ago
  Morality is relative anyway.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Yes but it's meaningless to devolve into that rabbit hole here because Western court of public opinion has already decided it is morally wrong. This is reflected in writing in the rules of very nearly every academic institution across the planet.
    - matz1 8y ago
      If I'm the essay writer, how is your morality forcing me to stop doing it ? Unless it become law, and actually enforced, your morality is meaningless.
      - komali2 8y ago
        Nothing is, but why would you do it if you weren't getting paid for it (because all your customers have been thrown out of school)?
- komali2 8y ago
  Employers do care if you outsource your code writing to India without telling anyone, which is the functional equivalent here.
HarryHirsch 8y ago
What if some of the statement were true? We don't hesitate to close down bars and nightclubs where the patrons are regularly getting into fights, we prosecute people who leave their car key in the ignition and people who leave guns in plain sight. This kind of negligence encourages criminal behaviour, and that is something we don't need more of.

That's like saying "stealing isn't morally wrong - inventory control is retailers' responsibility and therefore it's their job to reduce loss".

by s17n 8y ago

That's like saying "stealing isn't morally wrong - inventory control is retailers' responsibility and therefore it's their job to reduce loss".

jrhurst 8y ago

I have a feeling that people who make misterbowlfingers argument would say that your analogy is also valid.

s17n 8y ago
The point is that since similar statements could be constructed about anything ("murder isn't wrong, it's the job of police to prevent me from killing people"), it's a dumb argument, regardless of how you feel about cheating or stealing.
- sithadmin 8y ago
  No, your approach to reasoning is bad. You're trying to apply a construct from formal logic and apply it to situations that defy description in formal logic. You can't reduce aesthetic and emotional responses into syllogism.
  - s17n 8y ago
    Often, the nuances of the real world defy simple syllogistic reasoning. This isn't one of those times.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Prove it. "Cheating" seems to have huge downsides, on the other hand it reduces friction inside of a rigid system. That is a net positive that stealing a TV from best buy simply does not have.
      - tylerhou 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons > "Suppose buyers cannot distinguish between a high-quality car (a "peach") and a "lemon". Then they are only willing to pay a fixed price for a car that averages the value of a "peach" and "lemon" together (pavg). But sellers know whether they hold a peach or a lemon. Given the fixed price at which buyers will buy, sellers will sell only when they hold "lemons" (since plemon < pavg) and they will leave the market when they hold "peaches" (since ppeach > pavg). Eventually, as enough sellers of "peaches" leave the market, the average willingness-to-pay of buyers will decrease (since the average quality of cars on the market decreased), leading to even more sellers of high-quality cars to leave the market through a positive feedback loop."
        Retric 8y ago
        As to your specific argument reducing the implied value of a degree without impacting it's actual value is a net gain to society. Credentials independent of skill forces people to jump through extra hoops. This ends up as a huge drain on society. Anyway you just specified an implied though not supported downside, while ignoring my point that cheating has some minor upsides. Demonstrating that cheating is a dead loss for society is not enough you need to demonstrate it has absolutely zero redeeming qualities allowing for such simple syllogistic reasoning to apply
      - nitrogen 8y ago
        > That is a net positive that stealing a TV from best buy simply does not have. A major NYC blackout resulted in a bunch of looting. That looting is supposed to have resulted in a bunch of new musicians getting their hands on good equipment. Those scofflaw musicians invented new musical genres that revolutionized the artform. Sounds a lot like reducing the friction inside a rigid system. Basically, while we might prefer to have people raise integrity to the highest priority, life is complicated and it's sometimes hard to say a wrong thing is 100% wrong.
        Retric 8y ago
        TV's are not musical instruments and where part of my argument specifically because they are not used to create stuff.
sithadmin 8y ago
It is a valid analogy, because it confronts reality: there are a huge number of persons with economic incentives to commit immoral or illegal acts, and the state doesn't have the capability to intervene in a majority of cases. I mean, hell, look at SOX. Look at the various anti-money laundering requirements that banks are subject to. The de jure approach here in the world today is to force the corporation to police its own staff and customers.
usrusr 8y ago
"Punched him in the face for looking weak." Unfortunately, that attitude isn't half as uncommon as one should hope.

misterbowfinger 8y ago

I don't think the two are comparable. Cheating on a test doesn't "take" anything of intrinsic value from another person, stealing does. Cheating hurts no one. You can argue that cheating puts you ahead of students that work in good faith, systemically, though it's still a bit different. Stealing has implied intent of taking something away from someone, cheating doesn't. You're just trying to get better grades.

walshemj 8y ago
devalues the value of the qualifications and hurts those that didn't cheat.
eecsninja 8y ago
Agreed 100%. We only think cheating is only "wrong" because it goes against how the people who set up the educational system intend for it to work, e.g. they are short circuiting the system. It has no counterpart in the real world, and cannot be compared to murder and theft. If it were up to me, I'd make the school system results-only -- i.e. it's about how well you can build a project and explain it, not how well you can write up answers. People who think otherwise need to wake up from their K-12-university programming. And in case anyone thinks I'm an uneducated redneck, I am an Asian American overachiever with two engineering degrees from world-renowned universities.
- nradov 8y ago
  A results-only education system would be preferable and would make some forms of cheating irrelevant. But it suffers from practical cost and scalability obstacles. We're already struggling to adequately fund public education. Are politicians willing to budget for additional teachers to evaluate student projects rather than relying on cheap and simple exams?
  - eecsninja 8y ago
    Maybe not, but companies are capable of assessing prospective employees. For the sake of my future children, that's all that matters to me. Fuck academia.

eecsninja 8y ago

Academic cheating is NOT morally wrong in a general sense. We only think it is because it's drilled into us from a young age by the educational system. But there's really no equivalent of "cheating" in real world industries where it's the results that matter. e.g. nobody cares if you took wrote the software yourself or got it from someone else's library, as long as the software product works. If cheating happens, it is the responsibility of: 1) schools to deal with that accordingly (withhold degrees according to pre-written rules, etc) 2) employers to interview people instead of looking at credentials (something they should be doing anyway).

matz1 8y ago
Morality is relative anyway.
- komali2 8y ago
  Yes but it's meaningless to devolve into that rabbit hole here because Western court of public opinion has already decided it is morally wrong. This is reflected in writing in the rules of very nearly every academic institution across the planet.
  - matz1 8y ago
    If I'm the essay writer, how is your morality forcing me to stop doing it ? Unless it become law, and actually enforced, your morality is meaningless.
    - komali2 8y ago
      Nothing is, but why would you do it if you weren't getting paid for it (because all your customers have been thrown out of school)?
komali2 8y ago
Employers do care if you outsource your code writing to India without telling anyone, which is the functional equivalent here.

HarryHirsch 8y ago

What if some of the statement were true? We don't hesitate to close down bars and nightclubs where the patrons are regularly getting into fights, we prosecute people who leave their car key in the ignition and people who leave guns in plain sight. This kind of negligence encourages criminal behaviour, and that is something we don't need more of.