5 ms·

Forget educational merit, he paid for the damn test. Is it so unreasonable for him to want to take it? If his peers want to make it a matter of "do something

by jlgreco 14y ago

Forget educational merit, he paid for the damn test. Is it so unreasonable for him to want to take it? If his peers want to make it a matter of "do something you don't want to do, or else you are a 'square'", then they can kindly fuck off. The only proper way to organize a prank of this sort is with an anonymous vote. If there was not an anonymous vote, I would anonymously choose to not participate.

majormajor 14y ago
What I'm trying to get at is that I see no moral "they were mean bullies!" high ground here, since a final is not required for one to be educated by a class. Anyone wanting the screw the rest of the class over was "mean" first. Anyone who intimidated anyone else into going along looks bad; so does anyone who didn't want to go along so that their fellow students would do worse. It's absurd to look at is as "I paid for that test." Education as paying for tests is a bug, not a feature. Elsewhere in the thread you call it "clowning." I call it "hacking." The educational value of learning that sometimes you can get things done in non-traditional ways, and everyone ends up well off as a result, is far higher than the educational value of taking yet another exam.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  "Moral high-ground" has nothing to do with it. As stated in the article, there is absolutely no ethical obligation to play along. The expectation that everyone should follow along is absurd for the reasons that I laid out, but those points are not about morality or ethics. I have laid out how to perform this "hack" ethically however: If, and only if, an anonymous unanimous vote performed would there be any ethical obligation to go along with it. Without that it is not a "hack" ...unless your definition of "hack" permits coercion. If coercion is considered unnecessary, then there is no reason to not hold an anonymous unanimous vote. Each participant must be given the opportunity to opt-in, without any coercion whatsoever. Is that really an unreasonable ask? If I were handed a ballot for this prank, I would vote No. (Why do I want to take the test? Many reasons, some I have already covered, some I have not. Frankly it is no ones business but my own and has no bearing on the ethics of the situation) If they then proceeded to attempt it anyway, their failing grades would not be my problem. If they neglected to hold the vote and assumed my participation, their failing grades would similarly not be my problem. If they held a vote, and I voted Yes, but then took the test anyway, then I would be the jackass.
- smsm42 14y ago
  You can "hack" as much as you want, but others do not have obligation to follow your wishes. The fact that so many people think others are obliged to do what they want and if they don't they are "jerks" who "screw them over" is a sad symptom of current entitlement culture, where everybody considers himself king of the world for no reason at all but for being there.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Personally, I think it's my moral obligation to do for others more than what they're entitled to (even if I don't always do so). If one were to apply the same standards to others - which I try to avoid - I don't see how that would be a sign of a sense of personal entitlement.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      What is the practical difference between "person A being obliged to do something for B", and "B being entitled to something from A"? If you universalize your moral obligation, then we end up with a system that is in practice no different than everyone feeling entitled to things from others. That you choose to handle yourself in that manner is great, but you cannot universalize it without creating a society of entitlement.
    - smsm42 14y ago
      You are free to hold yourself to any standard you like. It still does not create any obligations on others. If you give to charity, that doesn't mean your neighbor is obliged to match your donation. If you think he has - this is a clear sign of entitlement, you feel entitled to control his actions and have hin behave the way you like.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
stouset 14y ago
You are completely and totally ignoring the point. Wanting to take the test is not problematic. Opting out of the boycott and taking the test is not problematic. Allowing everyone to believe he is joining the boycott, and secretly taking the test anyway is dishonest douchebaggery of the highest order. There are alternate solutions to this problem that do not involve both skipping out on the educational value you perceive to result from taking this take while simultaneously fucking over every one of your classmates, including "innocent victims" who felt pressured into joining the boycot.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I, or any other hypothetical student, am under absolutely no obligation to explain myself or report my actions to some frat kids who want to skip out on studying. If I indicated, through an anonymous vote, that I would participate in their boycott but did not, then I would be a jackass. In absence of such an indication, what I choose to do or not do, say or not say, is my business alone.
  - stouset 14y ago
    Ah, sorry. I get it. Your language belies your real intent here. You simply want to punish the "frat kids".
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      "Punish them"?!? Give me a fucking break. How entitled can you be? I'm not being colourful when I say "frat kids". They literally had frat kids "guarding" the exam to ensure that nobody entered. I reject your implication that I have any obligation to engage in honest non-anonymous discourse with groups like that.
  - stouset 14y ago
    Again, there are two general avenues here that you can take assuming you want to receive the "benefit" of having taken the test. You can do it in a way that benefits you but completely fucks over a bunch of other students, including others who may have been "bullied" against their will. Or you can find a way to do it in a way that benefits you and has zero impact on others. Knowingly and stubbornly committing to doing the former is a dick thing to do, and kind of makes you an asshole. Not the type of "asshole" that acts to further their own self-interest. But the type of asshole who actively acts to subvert the interests of others.

by jlgreco 14y ago

majormajor 14y ago

What I'm trying to get at is that I see no moral "they were mean bullies!" high ground here, since a final is not required for one to be educated by a class. Anyone wanting the screw the rest of the class over was "mean" first. Anyone who intimidated anyone else into going along looks bad; so does anyone who didn't want to go along so that their fellow students would do worse. It's absurd to look at is as "I paid for that test." Education as paying for tests is a bug, not a feature. Elsewhere in the thread you call it "clowning." I call it "hacking." The educational value of learning that sometimes you can get things done in non-traditional ways, and everyone ends up well off as a result, is far higher than the educational value of taking yet another exam.

jlgreco 14y ago
"Moral high-ground" has nothing to do with it. As stated in the article, there is absolutely no ethical obligation to play along. The expectation that everyone should follow along is absurd for the reasons that I laid out, but those points are not about morality or ethics. I have laid out how to perform this "hack" ethically however: If, and only if, an anonymous unanimous vote performed would there be any ethical obligation to go along with it. Without that it is not a "hack" ...unless your definition of "hack" permits coercion. If coercion is considered unnecessary, then there is no reason to not hold an anonymous unanimous vote. Each participant must be given the opportunity to opt-in, without any coercion whatsoever. Is that really an unreasonable ask? If I were handed a ballot for this prank, I would vote No. (Why do I want to take the test? Many reasons, some I have already covered, some I have not. Frankly it is no ones business but my own and has no bearing on the ethics of the situation) If they then proceeded to attempt it anyway, their failing grades would not be my problem. If they neglected to hold the vote and assumed my participation, their failing grades would similarly not be my problem. If they held a vote, and I voted Yes, but then took the test anyway, then I would be the jackass.
smsm42 14y ago
You can "hack" as much as you want, but others do not have obligation to follow your wishes. The fact that so many people think others are obliged to do what they want and if they don't they are "jerks" who "screw them over" is a sad symptom of current entitlement culture, where everybody considers himself king of the world for no reason at all but for being there.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Personally, I think it's my moral obligation to do for others more than what they're entitled to (even if I don't always do so). If one were to apply the same standards to others - which I try to avoid - I don't see how that would be a sign of a sense of personal entitlement.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    What is the practical difference between "person A being obliged to do something for B", and "B being entitled to something from A"? If you universalize your moral obligation, then we end up with a system that is in practice no different than everyone feeling entitled to things from others. That you choose to handle yourself in that manner is great, but you cannot universalize it without creating a society of entitlement.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    You are free to hold yourself to any standard you like. It still does not create any obligations on others. If you give to charity, that doesn't mean your neighbor is obliged to match your donation. If you think he has - this is a clear sign of entitlement, you feel entitled to control his actions and have hin behave the way you like.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

stouset 14y ago

You are completely and totally ignoring the point. Wanting to take the test is not problematic. Opting out of the boycott and taking the test is not problematic. Allowing everyone to believe he is joining the boycott, and secretly taking the test anyway is dishonest douchebaggery of the highest order. There are alternate solutions to this problem that do not involve both skipping out on the educational value you perceive to result from taking this take while simultaneously fucking over every one of your classmates, including "innocent victims" who felt pressured into joining the boycot.

jlgreco 14y ago
I, or any other hypothetical student, am under absolutely no obligation to explain myself or report my actions to some frat kids who want to skip out on studying. If I indicated, through an anonymous vote, that I would participate in their boycott but did not, then I would be a jackass. In absence of such an indication, what I choose to do or not do, say or not say, is my business alone.
- stouset 14y ago
  Ah, sorry. I get it. Your language belies your real intent here. You simply want to punish the "frat kids".
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    "Punish them"?!? Give me a fucking break. How entitled can you be? I'm not being colourful when I say "frat kids". They literally had frat kids "guarding" the exam to ensure that nobody entered. I reject your implication that I have any obligation to engage in honest non-anonymous discourse with groups like that.
- stouset 14y ago
  Again, there are two general avenues here that you can take assuming you want to receive the "benefit" of having taken the test. You can do it in a way that benefits you but completely fucks over a bunch of other students, including others who may have been "bullied" against their will. Or you can find a way to do it in a way that benefits you and has zero impact on others. Knowingly and stubbornly committing to doing the former is a dick thing to do, and kind of makes you an asshole. Not the type of "asshole" that acts to further their own self-interest. But the type of asshole who actively acts to subvert the interests of others.