4 ms·

If they accept "tough luck" they're not going to go much beyond minimum wage. It's a dog-eat-dog world. > business that ignores a patent because it is convince

by genwin 14y ago

If they accept "tough luck" they're not going to go much beyond minimum wage. It's a dog-eat-dog world. > business that ignores a patent because it is convinced the patent is unfounded and would not stand up to a court challenge Same thing here. The students may be convinced the cheating charge would not stand up to a court challenge, hence they threaten to sue. > an employer that ignores a C in Government from Harvard (for a job applicant who took the hit on an unfair exam rather than cheat) The applicant wouldn't get that far. The resume would be filtered out by software before the interview. The applicant would lose the job to the cheater. It's a dog-eat-dog world.

pdonis 14y ago
So your argument is basically, it's a dog-eat-dog world, so it's OK to cheat to get ahead? I see. I don't agree, but I see. (Also, it's laughable to suggest that Harvard students are stuck with minimum wage if they don't cheat on exams. We're talking about Harvard; most employers won't even care what the applicant's GPA was.)
- genwin 14y ago
  It's okay to sometimes cheat on an exam in the same way it's okay for software developers to ignore the dozens of patents they infringe on, instead of paying the holders. In the same way it's okay to sometimes exceed the speed limit without asking the police for a ticket. In the same way it's okay to buy stuff online tax-free and not pay use taxes on it in your own state. Everyone cheats. I said they won't get much past minimum wage if they take the attitude "tough luck". Successful people get used to knocking down the hurdles others endlessly throw at them, often unfairly.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    > Everyone cheats. Well, yes, if you lump all the things you named together and call them all "cheating" without differentiating between them, yes, everyone "cheats". But I don't think everyone would agree that all the things you named should be lumped together. That's a subjective judgment, which means we probably won't get anywhere arguing about it--but see further comment below. > Successful people get used to knocking down the hurdles others endlessly throw at them, often unfairly. But the way you are putting it, anything I don't like or anything I don't want to comply with is just a "hurdle" that I'm justified in knocking down. By your logic, if I want my boss's job, it would be OK for me to murder him and then fill the vacant position; after all, he's just a "hurdle", right? Or if you don't think that would be OK, where do you draw the line? What principle lets me differentiate between things that are just "hurdles" that I'm allowed to knock down to be successful, and things that I'm not?
    - genwin 14y ago
      > What principle lets me differentiate between things that are just "hurdles" that I'm allowed to knock down to be successful, and things that I'm not? Easy: employ your own ethics system built around the Golden Rule, rather than blindly follow a system designed largely to make rich people richer.
      - pdonis 14y ago
        > employ your own ethics system built around the Golden Rule Wouldn't this system forbid you from cheating?
        genwin 14y ago
        No, e.g. cheating can be okay when the exam is unrelated to the lectures. The system doesn't forbid you from breaking the law either, like not paying your state's use taxes on stuff you buy online.
        pdonis 14y ago
        How does this square with the Golden Rule? Last I checked, that rule didn't say "I can break rules I don't like to get gold."
        genwin 14y ago
        You're not getting gold, you're restoring fairness where the rule or law is unfair. You get the gold by leveraging your renewed equal opportunity. "All versions and forms of the proverbial Golden Rule have one aspect in common: they all demand that people treat others in a manner in which they themselves would like to be treated." The Golden Rule doesn't only demand that you treat others that way; it also demands that others treat you that way, which may require action on your part.
        pdonis 14y ago
        > You're not getting gold, you're restoring fairness where the rule or law is unfair. But how do you know what's fair? More to the point, how do you know what all the other people, whom you're supposed to treat the way they themselves would like to be treated, think is fair? You've assumed that cheating on an exam which you believe to be unrelated to the course material is "fair"; how do you know all the other people who are affected by your action would agree? Also, I probably should have made it clearer at the outset that judging that something is "unfair" to you is highly subjective and prone to error. I do not really believe that the exams the Harvard students cheated on were "unfair"; I think the students were just too lazy to learn the material and then tried to weasel out of the consequences. But they themselves probably sincerely believe that the exam was unfair and unrelated to the course. The fact that so much was at stake makes their judgment that the exam was unfair quite different from, for example, my judgment that I know better than the people who put up speed limit signs what a "safe" speed is under the current driving conditions. See further comments below. > You get the gold by leveraging your renewed equal opportunity. Cheating doesn't give you "equal" opportunity; it gives you an extra opportunity that the people who don't cheat don't have. Whether that is actually "fair" is, as I said above, highly subjective, and it's very easy to judge wrongly if you have a strong personal stake in the outcome. That's why we have ethical norms that don't allow people to make such judgments unilaterally in cases where self-serving judgments are highly likely and have large consequences. Since I asked for a principle that distinguishes when it's OK to "cheat" and when it isn't, I should offer one of my own--actually two, following on from the above comments. I see at least two key differences between, for example, the case of exceeding speed limits, and the case of cheating on exams: (1) I can make a good case that I, driving my car on a particular road under particular conditions, can better judge what a safe speed is in that situation than lawmakers or regulators who just have very general rules for setting speed limits: I am there and they are not, and I'm the one who risks injury if I have an accident. So I have more information and am motivated to make good judgments. The case of students cheating on exams is opposite in these respects: the students do not have more information than the professor does, and they are highly motivated to make self-serving judgments about whether the exam is "fair", rather than accurate ones. (2) I gain no significant advantage over other drivers from speeding. I get where I'm going faster than I otherwise would, but that does not hinder any other driver from getting where they're going. There's no competitive element involved. In the case of students cheating on exams, there certainly is a competitive element; a student who cheats does not just gain an advantage, he takes away an advantage from others. So I would distinguish "cheating" that should be prohibited from infractions like speeding, by these two principles: the motivation for self-serving judgments, and the competitive element where one person gaining an advantage means others lose it. > The Golden Rule doesn't only demand that you treat others that way; it also demands that others treat you that way, which may require action on your part. I'm not sure the Golden Rule includes this, but that's an argument about terminology, not ethics. Basically, you're saying that you have to let other people know how you want to be treated. I agree with that general principle, but I'm not sure cheating accomplishes that purpose. Are the students who cheated at Harvard being treated more like they wanted to be treated because they cheated?

by genwin 14y ago

pdonis 14y ago

So your argument is basically, it's a dog-eat-dog world, so it's OK to cheat to get ahead? I see. I don't agree, but I see. (Also, it's laughable to suggest that Harvard students are stuck with minimum wage if they don't cheat on exams. We're talking about Harvard; most employers won't even care what the applicant's GPA was.)

genwin 14y ago
It's okay to sometimes cheat on an exam in the same way it's okay for software developers to ignore the dozens of patents they infringe on, instead of paying the holders. In the same way it's okay to sometimes exceed the speed limit without asking the police for a ticket. In the same way it's okay to buy stuff online tax-free and not pay use taxes on it in your own state. Everyone cheats. I said they won't get much past minimum wage if they take the attitude "tough luck". Successful people get used to knocking down the hurdles others endlessly throw at them, often unfairly.
- pdonis 14y ago
  > Everyone cheats. Well, yes, if you lump all the things you named together and call them all "cheating" without differentiating between them, yes, everyone "cheats". But I don't think everyone would agree that all the things you named should be lumped together. That's a subjective judgment, which means we probably won't get anywhere arguing about it--but see further comment below. > Successful people get used to knocking down the hurdles others endlessly throw at them, often unfairly. But the way you are putting it, anything I don't like or anything I don't want to comply with is just a "hurdle" that I'm justified in knocking down. By your logic, if I want my boss's job, it would be OK for me to murder him and then fill the vacant position; after all, he's just a "hurdle", right? Or if you don't think that would be OK, where do you draw the line? What principle lets me differentiate between things that are just "hurdles" that I'm allowed to knock down to be successful, and things that I'm not?
  - genwin 14y ago
    > What principle lets me differentiate between things that are just "hurdles" that I'm allowed to knock down to be successful, and things that I'm not? Easy: employ your own ethics system built around the Golden Rule, rather than blindly follow a system designed largely to make rich people richer.
    - pdonis 14y ago
      > employ your own ethics system built around the Golden Rule Wouldn't this system forbid you from cheating?
      - genwin 14y ago
        No, e.g. cheating can be okay when the exam is unrelated to the lectures. The system doesn't forbid you from breaking the law either, like not paying your state's use taxes on stuff you buy online.
        pdonis 14y ago
        How does this square with the Golden Rule? Last I checked, that rule didn't say "I can break rules I don't like to get gold."
        genwin 14y ago
        You're not getting gold, you're restoring fairness where the rule or law is unfair. You get the gold by leveraging your renewed equal opportunity. "All versions and forms of the proverbial Golden Rule have one aspect in common: they all demand that people treat others in a manner in which they themselves would like to be treated." The Golden Rule doesn't only demand that you treat others that way; it also demands that others treat you that way, which may require action on your part.
        pdonis 14y ago
        > You're not getting gold, you're restoring fairness where the rule or law is unfair. But how do you know what's fair? More to the point, how do you know what all the other people, whom you're supposed to treat the way they themselves would like to be treated, think is fair? You've assumed that cheating on an exam which you believe to be unrelated to the course material is "fair"; how do you know all the other people who are affected by your action would agree? Also, I probably should have made it clearer at the outset that judging that something is "unfair" to you is highly subjective and prone to error. I do not really believe that the exams the Harvard students cheated on were "unfair"; I think the students were just too lazy to learn the material and then tried to weasel out of the consequences. But they themselves probably sincerely believe that the exam was unfair and unrelated to the course. The fact that so much was at stake makes their judgment that the exam was unfair quite different from, for example, my judgment that I know better than the people who put up speed limit signs what a "safe" speed is under the current driving conditions. See further comments below. > You get the gold by leveraging your renewed equal opportunity. Cheating doesn't give you "equal" opportunity; it gives you an extra opportunity that the people who don't cheat don't have. Whether that is actually "fair" is, as I said above, highly subjective, and it's very easy to judge wrongly if you have a strong personal stake in the outcome. That's why we have ethical norms that don't allow people to make such judgments unilaterally in cases where self-serving judgments are highly likely and have large consequences. Since I asked for a principle that distinguishes when it's OK to "cheat" and when it isn't, I should offer one of my own--actually two, following on from the above comments. I see at least two key differences between, for example, the case of exceeding speed limits, and the case of cheating on exams: (1) I can make a good case that I, driving my car on a particular road under particular conditions, can better judge what a safe speed is in that situation than lawmakers or regulators who just have very general rules for setting speed limits: I am there and they are not, and I'm the one who risks injury if I have an accident. So I have more information and am motivated to make good judgments. The case of students cheating on exams is opposite in these respects: the students do not have more information than the professor does, and they are highly motivated to make self-serving judgments about whether the exam is "fair", rather than accurate ones. (2) I gain no significant advantage over other drivers from speeding. I get where I'm going faster than I otherwise would, but that does not hinder any other driver from getting where they're going. There's no competitive element involved. In the case of students cheating on exams, there certainly is a competitive element; a student who cheats does not just gain an advantage, he takes away an advantage from others. So I would distinguish "cheating" that should be prohibited from infractions like speeding, by these two principles: the motivation for self-serving judgments, and the competitive element where one person gaining an advantage means others lose it. > The Golden Rule doesn't only demand that you treat others that way; it also demands that others treat you that way, which may require action on your part. I'm not sure the Golden Rule includes this, but that's an argument about terminology, not ethics. Basically, you're saying that you have to let other people know how you want to be treated. I agree with that general principle, but I'm not sure cheating accomplishes that purpose. Are the students who cheated at Harvard being treated more like they wanted to be treated because they cheated?