In the case of Henry, you have to consider all of the factors regarding the situation. First of all, forget the fact that he is a star basketball player. In that classroom he is a student just like everyone else. He has not been performing in that class at a level good enough to maintain his scholarship, apparently. The teacher gets suspicious of his "A" paper and thinks it is too good to be true. Come to find out, he has indeed plagiarized his paper. Granted, so many things are riding on his passing this class. His mother is sick, he has nothing without school and basketball, etc. The point is, if he is copying the paper from the text, he knows he is plagiarizing. If Cynthia is doing her job as she is supposed to, isn't she supposed to give him an F for the course no matter what? The answer is not that simple. The question can be raised, 'Was it made clear to the student that plagiarizing is an offense that will result in a failing grade for the class?' It is quite possible that it was not, given that Cynthia is a new teacher and may not have communicated that to the students. Then another question can be raised, 'If the teacher were in the student's shoes, how would they want to be treated?' There are numerous variables at work here. I could go on and on, but I think for most people right and wrong vary depending on the situations. Granted, some things are just wrong regardless of the circumstances such as murder, adultery, etc. A lot of times 'right and wrong' depends on who and how many people will get hurt due to the consequences of what is or isn't done in a particular situation. This is where the concepts of consequentialism and non-consequentialism come into play. These concepts beg the question, 'what will produce the most good?' as opposed to 'what will produce the most harm?' for the parties the consequences are intended for.
It is important to remember that if we stay in teaching for any length of time we are bound to run up against situations such as this. I think we can all learn something from this situation and based on how everyone seemed to have an opinion about this, I believe we did. It all comes down to our personal convictions of what is right and wrong and what society says is right and wrong.
The most important thing I feel like we learned is that we base our decisions on the consequences much more often than not. Is this right or wrong? The answer depends on the person and the situation.
2 comments:
Joe, you raise a valid point; whether we apply Consequentialism or the Golden Rule should be determined on a case by case basis. Strict adherence to one ethical code would be closed-minded. I think a lot of us cringe when Consequentialism is used in some situations because it violates our sense of fairness, and seems to justify, in some cases, an evil means to a good end. If Henry intended to plagiarize, why should he get away with it just because he’s the star athlete and might have more to lose? However, there are definitely situations, such as the Mr. Pugnacious case where a child’s safety is at stake, where one could argue that Consequentialism is the best ethical basis for a decision.
You mention that there are certain things that are just wrong no matter what. It seems to me that adultery and murder are justified in the same way breaking the Golden Rule has been when circumstances result in instinct reactions. Dr. Pope mentioned the dispersion of blame in class and how this causes us to stray from our beliefs. It seems to me that there is an ideal unconsequentialist in all of us, yet when we have to fit punishments to crimes, we look at circumstances as a consequentialist. Unfortunately, doing so causes a lot of hypocrisy because our ethical theories do not correlate with our actions.
Post a Comment