Throne of lies?

Why we do the right thing.

What are some questionable activities?

• plagiarizing
• lying
• illegal downloading

What is the right thing?

Ethics wrap-up:

Philosophers:
Theories:
Big ideas:
Societal links:

Miley's Follow-up

May be true ...

BUT YOU CAN DO IT!!!

Here are a couple of examples of Human Rights written from the "pen" of different philosophers.

• Søren Kierkegaard – Existentialism

 “Superior Order” (often known as the Nuremberg Defense or “lawful orders”) will no longer be an acceptable defense in any court of law. Every person has the right and obligation to freely make decisions for themselves.

Superior Orders is a plea in a court of law, which claims that a soldier should not be held guilty for actions which were ordered by a superior officer. Søren Kierkegaard, a 19^th-century Danish philosopher, may have argued that this plea is morally wrong due to it’s lack of “authenticity.” In the 20^th century, some European philosophers created a school of thought called existentialism, which stresses that a “good person” is one who makes individual moral choices for themselves (while taking responsibility for those choices). Authenticity, which is the idea of being true to oneself when making moral choices, is the only virtue worth striving for in existentialist theory. In Kierkegaard’s view, choices should always be authentic (these are choices that involve consistency of perception, thought, and action). An inauthentic person, is someone who runs away from responsibility, never thinking for themselves. Oddly enough, this completely describes the actions of someone who would use the Superior Orders plea to try to escape blame. Since this plea is basically the justification that the defendant was told what to do (and had no other options), Kierkegaard would have argued that this defense is the plea of inauthentic persons – and therefore, should cease to be a mitigating factor in court. In the existentialist view, actions, beliefs, feelings, and attitudes are all a matter of choice; choices that every person must make for themselves. Incompatibilism, the belief that free will and determinism are not logically compatible categories, rings perfectly true in this circumstance (Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen). (“Incompatibilism.” The Information Philosopher. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 June 2012) A believer of Incompatibilism would agree that free will and the claim of having “no other option” are perfect opposites, and that the Superior Orders plea is contradictory per se.

• Kongfuzi – Humanism

Everyone has the right to free legal representation; it shall be paid through the federal/provincial government, and lawyers will not charge individuals for their services.

According to the text, In the sixth century BCE, crime/violence were on the rise in China. Theft and murder were thriving, and the government had become corrupt. “Business was flourishing, but scholars were unemployed. The rich were becoming richer, the poor poorer.” (HTZ4UO Text) Kongfuzi was born into a life of poverty, and his father had died when he was very young. In other words, had seen hardship firsthand.  Also in regards to the 21^st century, quality legal representation in courts has become very expensive. Often, harsh penalties don’t apply to the worst criminals, but to the defendants with the worst lawyers. For example, at the Nebraska State Bar Association's annual meeting, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voiced her concern about the possibility of executing the innocent and the need for better representation of indigent defendants. O'Connor stated, "More often than we want to recognize, some innocent defendants have been convicted and sentenced to death." She added that this would continue unless indigent defendants were represented by qualified lawyers. (Nebraska StatePaper.com, Oct. 19, 2001.) More often than not, unreliable defense attorneys play a huge role in their client’s sentencing. This further proves that the less fortunate are not awarded the same stance in a court of law, as someone who can afford better lawyers. Kongfuzi was once one of these less fortunate people, which is why I believe he would strongly agree with this article. He would have suggested that this flaw in the legal system could be solved by free legal representation. This article would be in agreeance with his Humanistic standpoint that emphasized concern for others, in regards to the legal system of today. Historical materialism, is the methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history first articulated by Karl Marx. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human societies in the way humans collectively make the means to live, thus giving an emphasis, through economic analysis, to everything that co-exists with the economic base of society (e.g. social classes, political structures, ideologies). (Pawlett, Sam. “What is Historical Materialism?” Marxmail. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 June 2012.) In my opinion, this approach could be taken when examining both the legal systems and education systems (which applies to both of these articles) of today, so that the flaws due to social classes and money could be resolved.

• Immanuel Kant – the Categorical Imperative

Everyone has the responsibility and obligation to treat the environment with respect. No person, group, corporation, or nation state is exempt from this obligation.

Immanuel Kant, the 18^th-century German philosopher, believed that that moral choices must be judged by the good will of the moral agent (a non-consequentialist theory). He once wrote that, “nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without

qualification, except a good will.” He maintained that good will had a direct interrelationship with duty, and that duty meant what is rational. Kant believed that there is only one, and that having a good will comes from this single principle; a principle is called the categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim [principle or general rule] whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law of nature. Although this imperative is generally applied in peoples’ associations with other people, it could also be applied to humanity’s treatment of the environment. The imperative leads moral agents to ask, “is the choice I am about to make universally acceptable?” This means that when faced with making a moral choice, people with a good will must choose the course of action that they would want everyone to choose all the time – despite the consequences. This leads into our exploitation of the environment. Even if a state or corporation could justify their actions that worsen our world’s natural state, they couldn’t possibly believe that their behaviour is okay for anyone, at any time. If it was, that would allow humanity to completely destroy the earth in our own selfish interests. Not only is this morally unreasonable, but it would ultimately lead to our end anyway… our survival depends on our environment. Environmentalism is a philosophy and ideology that emphasizes the concern for and preservation of our natural environment. (Runyon, Jennifer. “What is Environmentalism, Anyway?” Renewable Energy World (2011): 1-4. Canadian Reference Centre. Web. 7 June 2012) This philosophy is pertinent to the obligation of respect for the environment, and better describes what the article is trying to achieve. I believe that if Kant could see the effects that we are having on our natural surroundings today, he would agree that protecting our world is the universally permissible, morally right thing to do – the categorical imperative.

Some info:

How Philosophers Answer the Main Ethical Questions

Are Moral Choices Possible?

Socrates: Yes moral choices are possible.
Epicurus: Yes moral choices are possible, doing the right thing paves the way for ataraxia.
Thomas Aquinas: Yes moral choices are
Søren Kierkegaard: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions.
Jean Paul Sartre: Yes moral choices are possible. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions. 
Jeremy Bentham: Yes moral choices are possible. The moral choice is the one which brings the most good to the most people. (consequentalist theory)
John Stuart Mill: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people.
Immanuel Kant: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that has a moral intent. 
Ayn Rand: Yes moral choices are possible. A moral choice is one that has the best interests of the self at heart.



Why Do the Right Thing?

Socrates: Because doing the right/ethical thing is the cornerstone to living "the good life".
Epicurus: Doing the right thing paves the way for ataraxia/serenity which is the greatest pleasure of the mind.
Thomas Aquinas: God deemed it right, and Aquinas is condemned to a perpetual life of follwing gods word without fail.
Søren Kierkegaard: Because going against your authenticity feels wrong.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Because moral actions lead society towards the cultivating the overman, the advent of whom benefits all.
Jean Paul Sartre-----------------
Jeremy Bentham: ---------------
John Stuart Mill:-------------- 
Immanuel Kant:----------------
Ayn Rand: Because you wouldnt want "wrong" things done to yourself, so do not do them to others.


Can People Be Good Without Religion?

Socrates: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Epicurus: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Thomas Aquinas: No, conforming to God's rules is "good" to Aquinas.
Søren Kierkegaard: No, people must move beyond judging their actions according to reason or the standards of society, and become only accountable to god. 
Friedrich Nietzsche: Yes people can be good without religion. "Faith in god is disappearing, and with it the universal values provided by that faith.  
Jean Paul Sartre: Yes people can be good without religion.
Jeremy Bentham: Not specified, but yes considering he believes that the greatest good to the greatest number of people is equivalent to right.
John Stuart Mill: Utilitarian, so probably.
Immanuel Kant: Probably, but it doesn't specify.
Ayn Rand: Probably, but it doesn't specify.


How Should the Rightness or Wrongness of Actions be Determined?

Socrates: Actions that go against the society made up of family and friends (laws) is wrong. Anything that conforms is right.
Epicurus: Right actions pave the way for ataraxia/serenity, wrong actions do the opposite.
Thomas Aquinas: What god deems right is right and what he deems wrong is wrong.
Søren Kierkegaard: What god deems right is right and what he deems wrong is wrong. 
Friedrich Nietzsche: People determine their own values.
Jean Paul Sartre: Each person defines right and wrong themselves and acts accordingly.
Jeremy Bentham: An action that brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the right one. (Hitler believed by eliminating the jews he was doing a great good for germany, there were far more aryans than jews in germany so was he doing the "right" thing for germans?)
John Stuart Mill: An action that brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the right one.
Immanuel Kant: The rightness of actions can be determined by the intent of the actions themselves (non-consequentialist)
Ayn Rand: Right actions are those which are in the selfs best interest.

Gattaca and your next assignment ...

Circle:  When do you most need help?

As we spend the next 2 days watching the film, consider the human rights that are being violated.  We will review the 30 human rights at the end of the film, and you will have 2 days to work on your assignment A Philosopher's Declaration of Human Rights.

Day 26-28: Human Rights

Whoo hoo will you stand up for?

Circle time:  In a conflict, how do you decide with whom you will stand?

1.  Pre-questionnaire

2.  What are human rights?

3.  The 30 Human Rights: Take notes on EACH one

4.  Assignment

5.  Exemplars

As we watch the film Gattaca, consider the human rights of the main characters and their potential violation.  Who would respond the this?  What would an ethical philosopher say?

Turn-it-in for Class Assignments

For each assignment, you will need to submit any written work to turn-it-in.
Your Yes/No reflection is due MARCH 12.  Closure for the assignment is March 22, 9am.


1.  go to www.turnitin.com
2.  Login by creating an account or by using the account you have previously created. Ensure you create a STUDENT account/user profile. The password you choose is YOUR PASSWORD.

3.  When asked to join a class, the CLASS ID is 9650916

The password to join the class is acton

Day 18, 20, 22, 23, 24: There is no escape!

Let's debate!

Zoe squared: Monday

Matt, Maddie: Monday

Zack: Wednesday

Taylor, Lindsay, Allie: Wednesday

Aria, Sam, Kiera, Kayla: Friday

Samantha: Friday

Alfred, Breanna:  document  Monday (March 9)

Cailen, Celine, Katie (Monday March 9)
Andrew, Jake (Tuesday March 10)

Day 16 & 17: Rightness or Wrongness

Circle: How do you determine 

the RIGHTNESS or WRONGNESS of an action?

Reflect ... Share ... Discuss

Name and Respond

Video 1

Was this action RIGHT or WRONG as per your list?  As per you?

Video 2

Was this action RIGHT or WRONG as per your list?  As per you?

Reaction

Justified?

Review your notes.  Which philosopher would agree with the rightness or wrongness of these actions?

Name, provide theory, discuss

Ethics Vocab

Ashley

Was this action RIGHT or WRONG as per your list?  As per you?

Reaction

Justified?

Article

Review your notes.  Which philosopher would agree with the rightness or wrongness of these actions?

Name, provide theory, discuss

Day 13, 14, 15: work periods

WORK PERIODS

Chromebooks in class

Day 12: Yes? No?

Presentation

Project

Student Examples:

on the blog

2011 - April 26, 27, 29 and May 3 

Day 9, 10, 11: Books ....

CIRCLE:
How best can we help people?

Okay ... the reading today may not be like television but it will help solidify some of the ideas we have talked about.
Your tasks:

Handout: read, highlight, make a Cornell note etc
TO HAND IN:

• one statement in the article you agree with
• one statement in the article you disagree with
• one question you still have

Textbook: 

Read, define, make a Cornell note etc pages 249 - 259

TO HAND IN:

For each big question:

• 3 words, with their definition, that you have learned
• main thinker(s) discussed 

Chapter 13: 

Get into groups of three.  Divide the chapter, giving each person in the group one main question to take notes on.

Create a google document, share it with your group AND ME, and take notes.  Here is my suggestion on how you do that.

ex: WHAT IS A GOOD LIFE (p. 263-267)

Philosopher ---------- Main ideas ----------

Day 8: Ethics

1.  Finish the presentation from Day 6

Homework:
Take notes on last part of presentation (Ruth Benedict)

Day 7: The red dot

It's not the dot ... it's the journey to the dot.

Presentation from Monday (continued)

Day 6: Let's get ...

Continue work from yesterday

Working together

Everything is better when someone has your back.

1.  Circle time: establishing norms then discussion.  Tell me one thing that every person is the world should have a right to.

2.  From what you just heard, did any one idea strike you as very true?  Any you had not considered?

3.  Ethics intro handout: read and complete the following

Write 1 statement about something you agree with in the document

Write 1 statement about something you disagree with in the document

Write 1 question you have of the document

Ethics Vocabulary

Small group discussions

4.  Intro presentation

Day 4: Remember the lightbulb?

1.  We ended with Descartes yesterday ... so let's start with him today!  DESCARTES
2.  Complete Day 1 and Day 2
3.  ''Oh my ....''
4.  Define reality for you, in your notes.
5.  Introduction to PLATO
6.  Allegory of the Cave PDF   Video     Better Video      Potential Best Video
7.  In your notes: Write 3 perceptions you have.
ex: My friend is smarter than I am.
Write a potential reality.
ex: Her mom wrote her English paper for her.
8.  Discuss.

Day 3: WOW

This is me after class yesterday:

Now let's finish day 1 and day 2 work!

Day 2: OMGOODNESS!

1.

What a FANTASTIC class yesterday!  We are a WINNING TEAM!!!

1.  Logical thought:

After a local bungled heist, five suspects were being interviewed by the police.

Eventually the police managed to get a confession.

Below is a summary of their statements and it turns out that exactly 5 of these statements were true.

Would you make a good detective, try and work out who committed the crime?

Adrian said:
It wasn't Barry
It was Cedric

Barry said:
It wasn't Adrian
It was Derek

Cedric said:
It wasn't Derek
It wasn't Barry

Derek said:
It wasn't Eric
It was Adrian

Eric said:
It wasn't Cedric
It was Derek

2.  What about me?  Getting to understand the philosopher in you.

What we say about ourselves:
imagination, critical thinker (challenging ideas, your own and others), logical, flexibility, decisive vs. indecisive, open-mindedness, theorize, ability to debate, creativity, confident, the ability to explain, ability to defend ideas, being observant, purpose, integrity (having morals, honesty), impartial, think outside the box, 

3.  Main question: Are humans by nature good or evil? Think-Pair-Share ... discussion
4.  Can we be right or wrong?  Can we be good and evil or good or evil? Tony
5.  Does it matter?
6.  Intro # 4 and 6 from yesterday

Day 1: Welcome!!!

Hello all!
This is ME and how happy I am that you have chosen this class!

PRE-CLASS Questionnaire

1.  Why study philosophy?
2.  How would you eat soup with a fork?
How would you listen to music if the stereo was stolen from your car?
What could you use to support a falling down bookshelf?
How could you get rid of rain if your wipers don't work?
3.  Why you need to think differently in order to achieve.
4.  An introduction
5.  One of the many philosophers we will study.  Welcome ARISTOTLE!
6.  How philosophy can save your life: one man's story.

COURSE OUTLINE

EXAM Review

Exam Review Overall Information Package

DAY 89 & 90 Performance Task

Performance Task for Grade 12 Philosophy, HZT4U1

This is an in-class (Library Lab) assignment due no later than Friday, June 13 at the end of class.  No extensions.  No questions.

"Outline your personal philosophy regarding the issue(s) raised in one of the news articles listed below.  Also choose two philosophers and outline how and why they would agree OR disagree with your personal philosophy." 

You can choose one philosopher who agrees and one who disagrees with your personal philosophy if you like.

Your answer must include the following:

·        Paragraph 1: your personal philosophy regarding the news article (it's a good idea to start with a brief discussion of the issue raised in the article and which part of philosophy (Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics) it falls under).

·        Paragraph 2: an outline of a philosopher and his/her theory that would either agree OR disagree with your personal philosophy, including at least one direct quote from the philosopher.

·        Paragraph 3: an outline of a second philosopher and his/her theory that would either agree OR disagree with your personal philosophy, including at least one direct quote from the philosopher.

This is meant to be a relatively small assignment so please limit your writing to two pages (500 words) excluding any direct quotes or paraphrases that you use.  Yes, full citations apply - along with a "Works Cited" page.

Please email me  your response when you’re done.    kovichm@hdsb.ca

Evaluation:  This response will be worth 10% of your final mark.  The Exam is 20%.

KNOWLEDGE                        /10

You summarize THEORIES correctly and fully and use appropriate UNIT VOCABULARY.  

THINKING                              /10

You outline your PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY regarding the news article and explain how it links to one of the studied units.

COMMUNICATION              /10

You COMMUNICATE IDEAS with clarity using appropriate language and vocabulary from the course/unit, with purpose and audience in mind and without errors in grammar, spelling or syntax.

APPLICATION                       /10

You identify and evaluate conclusions, implications, and consequences while making connections between your PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY and the THEORIES you use.  You OUTLINE HOW AND WHY your chosen philosophers would agree/disagree with you and use direct quotes to help in this process.

List of articles from which to choose – please do this assignment for only one of these articles  J   

If you would like to search further on any of these topics to help your thinking please do so.

Survivor Speaks About Being a Bangladeshi Garment Worker

Is There a Place in the Brain for God?  

Conflict at the Top of the World

Anti Abortion Bill in the USA

Mercury Poisoning in First Nations

Anti Bullying Bill Passes into Law in Ontario

Tanning Beds and the Rights of Minors

Traditional Inuit Knowledge

DAY 84 - Philosopher's Declaration of Human Rights

Philosopher's Declaration of Human Rights Assignment

Philosopher's Declaration of Human Rights Marking Sheet

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights full text.

DAY 83 - Cheating.....Why Is It Wrong?

This is a high definition image of a thief trying to sneak away with a bag of loot

"It's not cheating unless you're caught".

Cheating can be defined in many contexts. It can mean violating accepted rules to gain an advantage, such as in a game, in an examination, or in payment of taxes. Cheating can involve fraud, such as when a cashier cheats a customer out of their correct change. It can mean being unfaithful to a spouse. However, what is common to all is an act of deception, of dishonesty.

Cheating is all around us, and many point to a pandemic of cheating in this early part of the 21st century. On a daily basis, you find stories of cheating in education, sports, business, and politics. At a personal level, cheating on spouses has become easier with the Internet and social networking sites that facilitate the activity. People cheat while playing games; in fact, many computer games come with built-in cheat codes that allow someone in the know (usually after purchasing the cheat codes) to be able to out-play the non-cheaters. In this case, cheating is rewarded.

Why is cheating wrong?

Cheating, by definition, is a wrongful act. It implies that the cheater is doing something that is not, or should not, be allowed. Cheating is unethical behaviour by definition. It is playing outside the rules. But, why is cheating wrong? Several reasons can be given:

• It is unfair
  In a competitive situation, cheaters attempt to gain an advantage over non-cheaters by going outside the limits of what is considered acceptable. When people agree to compete, they agree to compete according to specific rules which govern an activity, whether it is Olympic basketball or a family game of Scrabble. If one competitor gains an advantage by playing outside the rules (cheating), it is not fair to the others, who agreed to abide by the rules.

• It is the same as lying
  Cheating involves pretending to be honest while being dishonest - you can't cheat openly. The cheater is showing disrespect for the rights of all others by "pulling a fast one". This makes the others serve the cheater's purpose, which, in Kantian terms, is wrong because it treats them like a means to an end.

• It devalues the activity
  In education, for instance, tests and assignments are qualifications that measure how well a student has mastered the material studied, and students are graded as to whether or not they have met an accepted standard. A medical doctor, for example, may be trained to understand diseases and their cures; when she demonstrates this ability, she will receive an academic certificate that indicates she is qualified to do so. If she cheated and obtained the certificate dishonestly, she has not actually met the standard, even though she appears to have done so. If enough people cheat their way to get medical certificates, of what value are these certificates? What do they prove?

In sports, the purpose of the activity is not winning, but performing well. The idea is that someone who performs well will, or should, be rewarded with victory. If someone cheats to win, then the winning performance is tainted by dishonesty. The whole competition becomes something less than it should be.

Cheating also robs the cheater of a sense of accomplishment: Cheaters know they are not actually entitled to what they have. For instance, if you cheat your way to victory in a computer game that only you are playing, did you actually win? Is your sense of victory, of achievement, of beating the challenge as great as if you would have won honestly? The purpose of a game is to overcome obstacles within an established, agreed set of rules; cheating violates that agreement, even if it is only an agreement with you yourself.

• It has negative social consequences.
  If cheating becomes widespread, it can lead to a general breakdown of trust, as people doubt the honesty of those around them. It can lead to cynicism and distrust of social institutions (e.g. schools), professions (e.g. doctors, engineers), political leadership, or the fairness of the economic system (e.g. business fraud). If most students at university cheat their way to success, of what value is a university degree? What does it actually indicate about the person who holds it? If a significant number of auto mechanics cheated to earn their certification, who can I trust to fix my car? If the stock market is rigged to favour insider traders, why should anyone invest their money in it? Or, just because you have a piece of paper indicating you are qualified, should I let you build my house?

• Cheating is contagious
  
  
  

  Cheating tends to have a corrupting effect on people who wouldn't normally cheat, since they don't want to be at a disadvantage if everyone else is doing it. This becomes a self-fulfilling statement meaning if more and more people feel that it's okay to cheat because more and more people are cheating, then, indeed, more and more people will cheat. This is particularly the case in competitive situations, such as education or sports. If the most successful students or athletes are cheating, and you want to be successful, why not cheat?

The perception, right or wrong, that others around them are cheating can lead otherwise honest people to cheat themselves. Cheating is related to a general breakdown of trust, because if you believe that some people are cheating and getting away with it, you can't be sure who is actually cheating and who isn't. If you have doubt of the fairness of a situation, it will chip away at your honesty, tempting you towards cheating. The perception that others are cheating tends to encourage people to cheat.

Philosophically, cheating can be condemned or defended, based on different Ethical Normative Systems. Virtue systems that emphasize fair dealing, such as Buddhism, would condemn cheating as not promoting universal justice. The same could be said for Duty Systems, such as Kantianism, which would argue that if I cheat I must believe it is acceptable for everyone to cheat, leading to a general breakdown of standards. Consequentialists, such as the Utilitarians, might argue that cheating would not bring about the greatest good, as I would be placing my good above that of others. This would mean cheating is a wrongful act.

On the other hand, a rational egoist of the Objectivist school might argue that cheating was okay, so long as I could get away with it, since it benefited me, which is the highest good. An Existentialist might also argue that cheating was acceptable, because I was demonstrating my freedom by not following the rules of others, provided I cheated in a spirit of authenticity to my own ideals. A Utilitarian could argue that, depending on the situation, cheating might promote the greatest happiness when playing by the rules would not.

Why do people cheat?

There are many reasons why people cheat. The reasons here are not exhaustive. Many times people try to 'rationalize cheating, pretending it is right when they know it is wrong, coming up with excuses to relieve their own feeling of guilt over committing a wrong act.

• To gain an advantage.
  One reason people cheat is to gain an advantage. Cheating can allow someone to score better on a test, win more easily in a sport, or make more money. Our society is highly competitive. There is lot of pressure on people to perform and, even more, to win. In many situations, the stakes are high. In education, a better grade can mean huge advantages in terms of scholarships and employment. In sports, fame and fortune are awarded to winners; losers are forgotten. Bending the rules in business can mean making a fortune. If the chance of being caught is low, or the punishment for cheating considerably less than the potential reward, this is a prime temptation to cheat.

• To right a wrong.
  Cheating also occurs when people perceive an injustice in the system and believe cheating is necessary to level the playing field, to make the activity fairer, rather than less fair. If a system is itself seen as unfair, some would argue that by cheating they are making it fairer. For example, if I believe that a teacher is treating me unfairly and giving me lower marks only because of my outspoken opinions against the cruelty of animals in the cosmetic industry, which include the producer of her favourite products, then why shouldn't I cheat to even out her unfair treatment of me? In this case, cheating is seen as an act of social justice, rather than personal gain. Of course, the chief beneficiary of this revised justice is the cheater, which can lead to questions regarding motive and perception - perhaps it's not the teacher discriminating, it's my poor quality work.

• Following the crowd.
  Many people believe that there is nothing wrong with cheating because everyone else is doing it. This runs counter to ethical thinking - just because other people are doing something wrong does not justify it, as shown in instances like the Rwandan genocide, racial segregation laws, or the Holocaust. However, it provides a strong rationalization for some people. This has led to what some commentators are calling a "culture of dishonesty" where it's okay to lie because dishonesty has become a new social norm.

Cheating is not a new thing, but it poses special challenges in the 21st century. It's here to stay.

What's the guy on the right doing?

Cheating in school Academic dishonesty is not a new phenomenon: there are records of students in Ancient Mesopotamia cheating 4000 years ago. However, the culture of dishonesty attitude and the advent of new technologies, particularly the Internet, have vastly increased opportunities to cheat, along with new ways of combating it. In addition, the trend towards high stakes testing, such as the American SAT (Standard Aptitude Test), Ontario's Literacy Test, and other standardized test instruments can put pressure on students, and educators, to cheat to improve test scores.

Student Cheating

Many recent studies have pointed to a pandemic of cheating by students. In many surveys, over 50% of students admit they have cheated; some surveys put the figure at over 80%. This is a vast difference from even a decade ago, with reported cheating nearly doubling. Many students justify their cheating because, "everyone else is doing it". In our competitive society, many also feel under pressure to excel, and when their best is not good enough, they look for any advantage. Very few cheaters get caught, some studies indicating fewer than 10%, making the fear of punishment less daunting: the benefits of cheating outweigh the risks. New technology has vastly facilitated cheating.

Student cheating can take many forms, including:

• Copying answers from another student's test or examination, with or without the consent of the person whose work is being copied; this can be 'wandering eyes', passing notes, or getting outside help via cell phones;
• Bringing crib notes into a test or examination, either on paper, written on your body, or, in recent twists, pre-recorded on devices such as iPods or cell phones; or
• Plagiarism, which is passing off the work of another as your own, particularly for essays and written assignments. While this is nothing new, the internet has greatly facilitated this practice.

Pressures to Cheat on Educational Systems

Some educational systems reward teachers when their students achieve higher grades, particularly on standardized tests. These rewards could be salary bonuses, promotion, or awards. There has been a recent trend towards accountability and outcomes in education. This means reporting on school performance and ranking schools, and, in some cases, teachers, as to what results their students produce, measured in terms of test scores or scholarships awarded. Parents often like this, because it is something quantifiable and tangible because a ranking of "3rd best in the province" is easier to grasp than a generic comment such as, "good quality learning took place".

In Ontario, for example, the results of the OSSLT and EQAO standardized tests are published in the newspapers, announced on television and radio, and available on the internet. Schools are ranked by how well their students have performed. In systems that allow school choice, parents will usually try to send their children to better scoring schools, defined as those that consistently produce better test results. In some systems, schools that score better receive better funding, and in a situation where funding for education is tight, the competition for students (and thus funding), can tempt school administrators to pressure teachers to help students perform better, condoning or even encouraging cheating. In addition, there may be teachers who disagree with the tests or feel they are unfair to some students and will consider subtle forms of cheating to help students perform better.

Check out our rating and ranking on the Literacy and EQAO tests: Fraser Institute's Ranking of Ontario Schools

What is to be done?

The epidemic of cheating in school seems to be increasing. Educating people about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is effective, but the culture of dishonesty at school seems to be growing. Is the answer greater enforcement of measures to control cheating on tests and examinations, such as searching students before they enter the room? This can lead to civil rights issues related to freedom from unreasonable search. For plagiarism, there is the option of submitting all written work to Internet services which can scan it for indicators of cheating. However, this has raised the issue of copyright and misuse of student work. As well, many argue that forcing students to submit work for "cheater-checking" presumes that some of them are guilty before proven so, which runs counter to our Canadian Charter right to be presumed innocent. Finally, controlling cheating by those in authority presents additional issues related to fairness, professional ethics, and value of qualifications.

 Resources

1. To read a thorough and lengthy article from Maclean's magazine on the issue of cheating in school, click here.
2. To read recent Ontario College of Teachers decisions regarding teacher misconduct, click here.
3. To read about teacher cheating in the United Kingdom, click here.
4. To read about the controversy over the Internet anti-cheating service Turnitin, click here.