Academic Cheating

What is considered cheating? Everybody has different standards. Some will say that writing papers for others isn’t cheating. Or getting test banks isn’t cheating. But one thing I think we can all agree on is that copying answers out right on a test in a classroom is cheating!

1. A few months ago, I was taking a final in a classroom with about 100 other people in it. Everyone had the same test, and there were no spaces between desks. In other words it was one crammed room with plenty of cheating opportunities available.

This final was on Robotics, one of my favorite classes. I had done well in that class the whole semester. My lab partner and I even won a race, our robot was able to go the fastest! We beat the guys, and it was really funny to see them being sore losers and making excuses of why we won.

So when it came to the final, my lab partner sat on one side of me, and this other girl I don’t know sat on the other side. The test began and I quickly filled out all the answers that I knew, and couldn’t wait to get all the information down and get home so that I can study for my next final.

But then the girls sitting next to me had a different plan in mind, they wanted to cheat off my paper. My worst vice I would say is that I can’t say NO! (I’ve had it before with babysitting jobs, where I couldn’t tell the mother that NO I can’t babysit by her. So the same thing happened here.) I couldn’t say no, and I let them cheat off my paper. Because one of the girls was my lab partner and I had become her friend, I felt like I couldn’t be mean to her and say no.

This is an example where every midah can be used for good and bad. How sometimes we have to be mean because it’s the right thing.

2. When I first started college, while I was in seminary at the same time, I came into a situation that involved cheating. I was taking a test and was stuck on a few examples. The guy sitting next to me felt bad that I didn’t know the answers, so he figured he would “help me out”. He told me the answers to the multiple choice questions. But I didn’t feel right to write the answers down. So I went up to the professor, and told him that I was stuck on those questions and asked him to explain me the question. He did, and then I was able to answer the questions. I still felt as though I had done something wrong, so the next day I went over to a Rabbi at the seminary and told him the situation and asked him if what I did was okay, and he said yes, and I then felt better.

3. There was this married women with 2 kids who shared a class with me. She told me how hard it was that she was married with kids in college, and that she didn’t have time to study. She told me that 10 years ago when she was in college she studied really hard. But now because she has other responsibilities, she doesn’t have time, so she cheats on her test. She said she actually feels justified, that she’s not doing anything wrong by cheating. That she just needs to graduate already.

The next day in my philosophy class, some topic like this came up, where my professor said that she will let her son make any decision he wants about career choice, but one thing is certain, that she won’t let her kid take a break after High School, that he must go straight to college, while she can pay for it. Since if he takes a break, he may never get back to it. So I told her about this women in my class, who took a break and now feels justified in cheating. She said that’s a horrible thing, and the women is cheating herself. I of course agree!

4. Recently I started taking driving lessons. I took 2 to be exact and it was really fun. I don’t know why I waited till now to start. In any case, I went to this “5 hour class” and at the end the guy says he’s going to ask us a question and that will determine if we will pass or fail the road test. He says, if I tell you that 1+1=6, then how much is 1+1? I said 2, because I remembered my tax professor giving us a similar scenario, where he said that if he calls a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have? He told us the correct answer is 4, because no matter what you want to call the tail, it’s still not a leg. So I was thinking of this same scenario. So then the guy says I’m going to fail my road test for that, because no matter what you think is right, you have to listen to the driving inspector, and do what they say. To me that sounded like cheating. I’m still in the mentality, that you can’t change the absolute truth.

Kibud Av V’Aim

Philosophy issue #3 (issue 1 here, issue 2 here)

Here’s a question I have never thought about before:

What do grown children owe their parents?

Jane English claims children owe their parents nothing. That it’s only out of friendship that children will give to their parents. So if there’s a good connection, then the children will want to help their parents just like helping anyone else they care about. English says it’s because an obligation can only exist when there is a contract. Since parents had children without the children’s consent, then it is not a contract, so there is no debt to be paid back. Rather the parents have done a favor.

Christina Sommers, on the other hand, claims that children owe their parents respect no matter what. If parents provide the basics to their children when they are young, then the children at least owe the basics back to their parents. Aristotle says parents gave the children the gift of life and that is the greatest gift of all, without parents they wouldn’t exist, so children owe their parents for that.

Emanuel Kant’s theory is concerned with the motives and intentions of a person rather than the consequences that come out of it. Since a person has control over their intentions but not the consequences. Kant breaks down our actions into two categories, the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. The hypothetical imperatives are the desire-based motives that have nothing to do with morality. Therefore, if a person wants something then they do the action to obtain what they want. The categorical imperative on the other hand, does have to do with morality; they are reason-based motives, for which a person is morally responsible. Therefore, a person ought to do something no matter if they want to do it or not.

An important part of Kant’s theory is, to “act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”.

----------------------------------------------------------

Now here’s where my Jewish opinion comes in.

I think Children to owe their parents, so I disagree with Jane English. I agree with Christina Sommers that children owe their parents respect, after all it is called “Kibud”. I remember learning Hilchas Kibud Av V’Aim a while ago. Where it was discussed whether a child has to pay for something the parent wants. Example: if the parent asks the child to do something for them, and the child would have to pay a fare for transportation, then the parent should pay for the transportation, unless the child is able to walk and avoid the fare.

Now with Kant’s theory on motives, it reminds me of “Kavannah” and how Hashem decides if a person should get “schar or Onesh”. From what I remember, Hashem punishes a person only if they had the intention to do bad. However, Hashem gives reward to people for good, no matter if they had the good intention or not.

Now about Kant’s two different imperatives, Kant says there are some actions that have nothing to do with Morality. But if you look at it the Jewish way, everything can be connected to morality. Even the simple act of eating or sleeping becomes moral if you have a moral intention. An example being, a mother sleeps with the intention of having energy to raise her children. With the intention she has elevated her action to become a holy one, and not a mundane one.

About acting only by actions that you can rule on others, sounds like “do not do unto others that which you wouldn’t want done to you”. It makes sense, however, in Jewish law we know there is no absolute rule, there are always exceptions and Kal V’Chomers. Even in the case of lying, there are times when you are supposed to lie. Hashem lied to Avraham for the sake of Shalom Bayis. I once heard that if the wife broke a vase by mistake, and her husband will get angry at her for it, then she is allowed to say the child broke it, so that the husband shouldn’t get angry at her. This is assuming that the husband will not get angry at the child, since he would understand that children tend to be more clumsy and break things easily.

Helping Oneself

Philosophy Issue#2 (Issue#1 here)

Now this is a topic I find myself strongly being able to relate to. I’ve been told countless times “you have to do what you want, what do you want?”. I always have the same answer that I want to do what the right thing is, whether that’s what my parents say, or school says, or whoever I feel is right. It caused me to feel sandwiched with the whole college dilemma, since I didn’t know what I wanted for myself. Since I have such a strong care for others, I want what they want. (Although when I was babysitting, I realized I was sacrificing too much of myself and had to put an end to it.)

Jean Hampton in 1993 wrote an article called “Selflessness and the Loss of Self”. She discusses this topic of helping oneself and having self authorship. There are two “moral voices”, the ethic of care and the ethic of justice.

Women-ethic of care: they take into consideration people’s feelings. Mothers were trained to be this way since they have to raise a family and take care of their children. A mother has to care for her children and be aware of their feelings when siblings fight.

Men-ethic of justice: they make decisions based on logic. Men were trained to be this way since they are in the work place and have to make quick decisions. Business is all about quick decisions based on logic, they never think of the competitors feelings.

We have lots of mitzvos that are other related, “Vehafta L’reach Hakamocha” and you can’t embarrass another person, you have the mitzvah of “Kibud of Haem” and respecting your elders, and the midah of “anivus”. We have the concept of being “mevatar” to give something up for another person to have. All this trains us to be good moral people who care about others.

At the same time I fear we become so other oriented, that we loose focus of ourselves.

The question becomes how much do we owe to ourselves and how much to others?

Boys would say if responsibility to others and to oneself conflict then you go about 3/4 to yourself and 1/4 to others. Boys feel the most important thing in their decision is themselves.

Girls on the other hand would say it depends on the situation that if you have responsibility to someone else then you should keep it to the extent that it is really going to hurt you or stop you from doing something you really, really, want, then maybe you put yourself first. A girl would evaluate what she feels is more important, her job or someone she loves, and if it’s someone she barely knows then maybe she would go first.

Now I personally think the girl is being better. However, I do understand where it’s important to take care of oneself so as not to cause harm to oneself when taking care of others. A perfect example of the girl way of thinking is Tembow in her You want my... honey?? post.

Self authorship is needed for a person to make a decision that is based on what they choose to do, and not dictated by society. This enables you to grow as an individual. An example: an investment banker had wanted to be a clown his whole life, and even though he was making tons of money he didn’t feel satisfied so he decided to drop his job and go to clown school, now he has self authored his life.

I think self authorship is important to prevent a person from doing avairos. If a person chooses what they want, and if they want to do the right thing, then they will. But if they are pressured into doing what other people say, then they may be encouraged to do something they really don’t want to do, and thereby do an avaira.

Helping Those In Need

I am taking my third philosophy class and I have to say I am enjoying it very much. I like thinking about different moral issues and debating what I feel is correct. So here’s to issue #1, helping those in need, to what extent are we obligated, and are we obligated at all?

Peter Single in 1971 wrote an article called “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. In this article he talks about this topic of helping people in need. Singer claims “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally to do it”. For example: If you are walking past a pond and see a child drowning, you ought to go in and save the child. This will mean getting your clothes dirty, but that is insignificant, where the death of the child would be a very bad thing.

Singer claims it makes no moral difference whether the person you can help is a neighbor’s child or a child from a 3rd world country whose name you don’t even know. Singer also claims that there is no distinction between cases in which you are the only person who could do anything and cases when you are one in a million in the same position.

Singer believes a person should give till they reach marginal utility, where if they would give any more then they would cause harm to themselves.

Singer believes that there is no such thing as charity, but rather a person is required to give away money they would use to buy new clothes they don’t need, to help famine relief. Singer claims it is wrong not to give away the money.

Arguments:

1- Distance can make a difference. We always learn that Chesed starts at home. So I believe we should first help our family, friends, and those we care about, before we help strangers.

2- I don’t believe a person has to give so much that they are left with as much as the poor people have. A person needs an incentive to continue working, if they were to always give everything away, and not keep any for themselves then they would no longer work as hard, and then we would have to be asking for help.

3- I think there is such a thing as charity, we have tzedaka, where it’s a mitzvah to help someone out. Although 10% is required of us, we are not permitted to give more than a certain percentage. Even if Tzedaka is required of us to give, we still get acknowledged and rewarded for it, it’s still considered a moral act.