Every day there are numerous ethical issues people face, everything from highly controversial topics such as capital punishment to daily problems like lying. Kwame Anthony Appiah’s article, ‘What Should I Do About My Cheating Classmate,’ is an example of the latter form of moral issues. While seemingly a small matter, this article still creates the question ‘How can the moral issue of a cheating classmate be viewed under an ethical scope and the eight Key Questions of ethical reasoning?’
In this ethical dilemma submitted to the Ethicist the commonplace problem of cheating in a scholastic setting is addressed. The question is posed by a high school student who is aware of the fact that his academically successful best friend is cheating. The inquirer attempted to confront his friend, yet the cheater personally justified his actions and still continues his dishonest conduct. The anonymous writer has found himself in a moral problem; he knows cheating is wrong but is it right to tell on his friend? He is afraid that by continuing to cheat his friend will hurt his future, but, on the other hand, cheating is engraved as an immoral act in today’s society.
If he were to ignore his friend’s actions, he would be enabling deceit, academic dishonesty, and the potentially disastrous outcomes if the deception were ever discovered, but he would keep his friendship with his best friend. However, if he were to report his friend’s actions then while breaking the bonds of his relationship, he would uphold his academic integrity, as well as, ensure his peers have equal opportunity for educational success. Due to the moral nature of this dilemma, by applying an ethical theory, a decision about the morally correct action can be reached (Appiah, 2018).
127 our experts are availableright now
Kantian ethics is a nonconsequentialist moral theory that is centered on reason, discounting concepts such as happiness, virtues, and religion. Nonconsequentialist theories focus on the morality of the action being performed, not the outcomes created by it. Furthermore, Kant, the creator of this specific ethical scope, believed that moral laws consist entirely of categorical imperatives. These categorical imperatives specifically describe actions ‘that we should do…in all situations regardless of our wants and needs’ (Vaughn, 2018, p. 103). Kant’s theory is based on the categorical imperative, a single categorical imperative that he claims encompassed all of them; however, there are still two distinct parts of this theory.
First, every action must be considered as if it were a universal rule; if the action cannot be universalized or you would not desire to live in such a world, then the specified action is unethical. Second, a person must never be used solely as a means to an end- a rule called the means-end principle. In essence, you cannot violate another person’s rights to obtain a desired outcome. By applying Kant’s theory to the ethical dilemma of the cheating classmate, it is clear what the morally correct action would be for the student to take (Vaughn, 2018).
Before applying Kant’s theory to the dilemma discussed in ‘What Should I Do About My Cheating Classmate,’ it must be confirmed that neither of the potential decisions the writer could take would conflict with his perfect duties. Perfect duties are ‘derived from the categorical imperative… [and] absolutely must be followed without fail; they have no exceptions’ (Vaughn, 2018, p. 103). According to Kant, keeping promises and telling the truth are two perfect duties everyone must follow; while these two actions could potentially be viewed as part of this dilemma, they are not.
Although the writer did discuss cheating with his friend, his friend never made him promise not to disclose his activities; therefore, there are no promises in question in this case. Similarly, the inquirer never stated that anyone has asked him about his friend cheating, so he would not be lying if he chose not to tell. Since no perfect duties are being broken, Kant’s theory can be applied. In accordance with the first version of the categorical imperative, a rule must be made concerning the moral action in question; for example, he may say ‘In order to preserve close personal relationships you can impair the success of others.’
However, if this rule were to be universalized, it would become self-defeating. If everyone impeded the advance of others for their friends, then ultimately everyone’s success would be stunted. The idea of living in a world that implemented this rule also is unappealing, as eventually, it will be your own success that is being prevented; therefore, since it fails this first test, keeping his best friend’s actions of cheating to himself would be a morally wrong action. On the other hand, a rule such as ‘Be honest even at the expense of personal relationships,’ could be universalized and would create a more reliable and fair world.
In this case, the means-end principle does not help determine the morally correct action, since neither action would lead to the inquirer to restrict his friend’s autonomy. His friend’s freedoms are not limited by either decision; whether the writer tells on his friend or not, the cheater still has the ability to control his own actions, and no rights are impeded. Nevertheless, keeping his friend’s cheating to himself does not pass the first part of Kant’s theory, thus making it a morally wrong action; reporting his friend for dishonest conduct does pass Kant’s theory, however, making it the morally acceptable action (Appiah, 2018; Vaughn, 2018).
The dilemma of the cheating classmate is hard to judge because of its complex moral nature; through the use of the eight Key Questions of ethical reasoning, a variety of different traits that can help reveal the morally right action. While all of the Questions are relevant, three specifically apply- Character, Fairness, and Responsibility. Character is seen as ‘what action best reflects who I am and the person I want to become?” (The Madison Collaborative, 2013, p. 5). While it is impossible to prove all virtues the writer wishes to embrace, there are a few that are exposed through his inquiry. The quality of compassion is shown when he describes that he is ‘concerned that his [friend’s] academic dishonesty may jeopardize his future and ruin his reputation” (Appiah, 2018).
Furthermore, he also displays his desire to be an honest and honorable person through his attempts to dissuade his friend’s reprehensible actions. By reporting his friend, he would uphold all of these virtues; he would be honest and honorable through the show of integrity, and compassionate since he is trying to stop his friend from further academic damage. A good friend would not let his best friend ruin his reputation by continuing to cheat. Fairness is defined as ‘how can I act equitably and balance legitimate interests?” (The Madison Collaborative, 2013, p. 2). The writer specifically describes his high school as ‘competitive’ and his friend as being known as ‘a top student’ (Appiah, 2018).
However, by cheating, his friend is depriving others of the fair chance for a higher status in their school, specifically, by holding a status he did not earn through legitimate work. If the inquirer were to keep the knowledge of his friend’s actions a secret, he would be aiding in the unfairness to his peers and their academic success. Responsibility is a big determiner in this case and is defined as ‘what duties and/or obligations apply?” (The Madison Collaborative, 2013, p. 4). While the writer does admittedly have responsibilities as a friend, they also encompass stopping self-harm and detriment, such as the disastrous outcomes of continuing to cheat. Moreover, he has academic responsibilities to himself, his peers, and his school.
Scholastic institutions are built around codes of conduct, which cheating directly violates. The inquirer’s obligations to the system which his friend is ‘outsmarting’ (Appiah, 2018) are to uphold the expected behaviors and policies that are in place, but if he were to keep the cheating to himself, he is enabling his friend to continue to disregard the duties that apply to them as students. By applying these Key Questions to the ethical dilemma, the complexity of the moral issue becomes abundantly clear; however, through their utilization, the morally right action is apparent (Appiah, 2018; The Madison Collaborative, 2013).
‘What Should I Do About My Cheating Classmate’ is a complex moral problem that has no solution that would benefit everyone; however, through the application of the eight Key Questions and Kant’s Theory, we are able to determine the morally right action the writer should take. Between his two possible decisions, only one would adhere to the Key Questions of Character, Fairness, and Responsibilities, and also create a rule that would be feasible to live with universally as established under Kant’s Theory. Therefore, despite the possibility of losing his best friend, morally reporting his friend’s dishonest dealings is the morally correct action to follow in this ethical dilemma.
