Ethics: Plagiarism.

According to Kant, nothing ever exempts a man from his moral duty. Sandra LaFave summarized Kant's definition of what makes a bad act, bad, perfectly, and I wouldn't word it any other way:

"Kant analyzes evil as a kind of logical error, or mistake in reasoning. A contradiction is the worst logical error. It would obviously be a contradiction for a rational being to say “Every rational being should do X, except me.” Contradiction of this form is called special pleading. When rational beings will to do bad things, they want a contradiction: they want everybody else to do the right thing, because that's exactly what makes their wrongdoing possible. For example, the liar wants everyone else to tell the truth; if everyone lied, no one would believe the liar's lie. So the liar in effect is willing a contradiction: “Every rational being should tell the truth, except me.” This is special pleading: wanting the rule to apply to everyone AND not to me. Such a contradiction is a failure of universality."

With that being said - would you recommend that everyone should cheat? -- or is it "different" when you do it?

Do not make an exception to a rule that you think everyone else should follow.

Consider:

• It means that other who worked hard, diligently and actually thought out their assignments are being robbed by other students who copy/paste and may get a better grade, since it's from a professional standpoint.

• It's too easy. It teaches you nothing, and it garnishes undeserved credit.

• It hampers the lessons you are supposed to learn leading to more failure later.

• People deserve money for all of their research, you cannot just lift it directly, you are allowed to make reference and take ideas however, but a direct lift is just theft.


And consider this thought carefully, as well: Not only is this harmful to the person from whom you are stealing, but it is also harmful to the thief. If you plagiarize another author's work, you risk your credibility as an author and your reputation for originality and honesty. Also, plagiarism is against the law and you are also risking control of your finances, should a lawsuit result in a judgment against you. Also risked is your freedom should you be convicted of the crime of plagiarism and sentenced to time in jail or prison.

The entire point of creating something is to express YOUR thoughts; YOUR opinions; YOUR ideas; YOUR vision about something. Plagiarism is lifting someone else's. You miss the opportunity to express yourself -- which, again, is the entire point of creativity.

It's stealing of intellectual property.

Ethics Essay: Kant on Deontological Ethics.

What would Kant do?

Of all the ethical theorists that I've read on thus far, I find myself having the most regard for Immanuel Kant's deontological theory. His theory goes beyond what 'feels right', what benefits the ego, or what fits in with societal norms, to determine what is right and wrong - his theory, to me, seems to be much more based on fundamental reason. According to Kritik der practischen Vernunft (Critique of Practical Reason, 1788):

"... good will is intrinsically good; its value is wholly self-contained and utterly independent of its external relations. Since our practical reason is better suited to the development and guidance of a good will than to the achievement of happiness, it follows that the value of a good will does not depend even on the results it manages to produce as the consequences of human action.

Kant's moral theory is, therefore, deontological: actions are morally right in virtue of their motives, which must derive more from duty than from inclination. The clearest examples of morally right action are precisely those in which an individual agent's determination to act in accordance with duty overcomes her evident self-interest and obvious desire to do otherwise."

In other words, the purpose of life is not simply to achieve happiness -- else, wouldn't we all be simply seeking self-gratification all of the time, with little to no regard towards helping others? Happiness is also not completely within our control; many external powers shape our lives, and our situations vary accordingly. It goes without saying that the consequences of our actions are simply beyond our control. Also, standing up for others -- and also for ourselves -- can, at times, have sad consequences; i.e., being a "whistleblower" at one's company can lead to the loss of a job, and the loss of income for one's family -- does this mean that having integrity in this matter was wrong? That because there were negative consequences, it was, therefore, the wrong thing to do?

Doing the right thing does not ever exactly depend on merely the results that one's action brings. Being happy, and doing the right thing, are, in reality, two very different things. According to Kant's theory, then, not only is doing the right thing a matter of personal integrity, but also of courage -- for courage is defined as doing the right thing despite the negative consequences that it can bring.

It emphasizes heavily on interest of others, and not on the self, which I feel personally is very noteworthy. Kant stated that doing the right thing meant to "act to treat humanity, whether yourself or another, as an end-in-itself and never as a means" - a.k.a., the Categorical Imperative. In other words, do not use people -- and do not allow yourself to be used, either. Recognize that yourself, and other people, have rights that should be respected [as opposed to the tyranny which is emphasized in utilitarian ethics -- which I personally despised].

Kant's theory, to me, personally, seems to be the one that strives to be at the most peace with the universe and with the rights to others living in it. It is a very tolerant and level-headed approach to life that is also very assertive and integral, and it is constant. According to Kant, nothing ever exempts a man from his moral duty. Sandra LaFave summarized Kant's definition of what makes a bad act, bad, perfectly, and I wouldn't word it any other way:

"Kant analyzes evil as a kind of logical error, or mistake in reasoning. A contradiction is the worst logical error. It would obviously be a contradiction for a rational being to say “Every rational being should do X, except me.” Contradiction of this form is called special pleading. When rational beings will to do bad things, they want a contradiction: they want everybody else to do the right thing, because that's exactly what makes their wrongdoing possible. For example, the liar wants everyone else to tell the truth; if everyone lied, no one would believe the liar's lie. So the liar in effect is willing a contradiction: “Every rational being should tell the truth, except me.” This is special pleading: wanting the rule to apply to everyone AND not to me. Such a contradiction is a failure of universality."

Finally, the right act must be performed with the right motive -- else, it is no longer a right act. A good will must be "purified" from inferior motives, and one must want to act according to good will; beyond that, even, Kant argues that any rational being that is capable of forming maxims and recognizing contradictions would want to.

As Kant puts it: "Rational nature is an end to itself."

Ethics Essay: Ford vs. Pinto

"In 1972, a woman, whom for legal reasons we will call Sandra Gillespie, pulled onto a Minneapolis highway in her new Ford Pinto. Riding with her was a young boy, whom we'll call Robbie Carlton. As she entered a merge lane, Sandra Gillespie's car stalled. Another car rear-ended hers at an impact speed of 28 miles per hour. The Pinto's gas tank ruptured. Vapors from it mixed quickly with the air in the passenger compartment. A spark ignited the mixture and the car exploded in a ball of fire. Sandra died in agony a few hours later in an emergency hospital. Her passenger, 13-year-old Robbie Carlton, is still alive; he has just come home from another futile operation aimed at grafting a new ear and nose from skin on the few unscarred portions of his badly burned body. (This accident is real; the details are from police reports.)"

- Adapted from a case by the Foundation Coalition
[http://www.foundationcoalition.org]

The legal issue here is the heavy responsibility that Ford Motors bears for willingly putting the lives of millions at stake, because there priorities were instead focused on the money that would be lost in recalls. They reasoned that the number of people they would be suing - and receiving monetary compensation for damages - would be far less brutal on the companies' pocketbooks than the recalls. As the discussion topic brings out, the assembly line machinery was already tooled when the engineers found the defect - it would have been harsh monetarily to fix the problem before the car was manufactured, let alone the recalls. However, here in lies the ethical issue: Ford *knew* about the problem *before* manufacturing it. They knew that people would be hurt. An exploding gas tank? - definitely, safety was not a major concern. And did they warn the public of this defect? It was not until *1978* that the issue was announced.

The action was NOT ethical by using utilitarian principles - if that had been the case, then Ford Motors would have used a point system to determine which choice would have yielded the greatest benefit to the most people. The public, obviously, is more people than the number of greedy manufacturers behind the Pinto being developed and sold to the masses without so much as a warning.