[Professor Deni Elliott] Students know cheating is wrong, and that it’s a violation of school
policy to smuggle notes into an exam, or to copy a neighbor's answers.
But what if a friend, who’s failing the class, asks you for answers to a test?
Or if you see someone you don't know cheating?
Does it matter if you report it or not?
Systematic Moral Analysis, or SMA for short, is a tool that helps us think through ethically
complex situations before taking action.
And it can also help us analyze the ethical dimensions of a complex situation
after the fact.
Consider this scenario: Some people in your class got a copy of last year's final.
You know that at least half the class has already looked at the questions.
Now, you're offered a copy.
What should you do?
The first step of SMA is conceptualization, which involves determining who might be harmed
and how.
If no one is likely to be harmed, then there's no ethical problem.
But how do we really know if we're about to cause harm?
[James] You probably will notice that you doubt yourself.
[Nikki] There is like something irking you, like, it's not as easy of a decision as you
may be accustomed to.
20th Century Philosopher Bernard Gert developed a list of 10 moral rules that can help us
identify ethically questionable acts.
1) Do not kill.
2) Do not cause pain.
3) Do not disable.
4) Do not deprive of freedom or opportunity.
5) Do not deprive of pleasure.
6) Do not deceive.
7) Keep your promises.
8) Do not cheat.
9) Obey the law.
10) Do your duty.
So, if you decide to take a peek at the old exam, then you're violating Rule #8: Do Not Cheat.
According to Gert, cheating causes harm because "the cheater gains an advantage over other
participants in the activity, by violating the rules that everyone is expected to follow."
You're also violating Rule #10: Do Your Duty.
As a student in the class, you have a responsibility to abide by the rules that you agreed to follow
that were set out by the professor and the university.
You are violating Rule #6: Do Not Deceive.
Your professor, and anyone who reviews your transcript, will assume that you earned your
grade honestly.
You've misled them to a false conclusion.
That's deception.
You're also violating Rule #7: Keep Your Promise by breaking the promise you've made to the
university under the honor code.
And you're causing harm to students who haven't seen the old exam by violating Rule #4:
Do not deprive of freedom or opportunity.
You're depriving them of the freedom, or, in this case, the opportunity, to have their
work evaluated in an honest comparison with others in the class.
They'll be unfairly harmed by grade inflation caused by the cheating.
So clearly, looking at last year's test is ethically questionable.
[Hannah] In my undergraduate geology course, someone had actually had a friend that had
already taken a test, recorded the answers, and was selling it to the class that was
about to take the test.
I was a little bit jealous that a lot of people had the answers to that geology test and
I did not, but deep down I think I made the right decision.
[Prachi] That's one reason why I prefer not to cheat: because at the end of the day I'm
cheating myself and not anybody else.
The second step of SMA is justification, which helps determine whether breaking a moral rule
prevents a greater harm from occurring or whether the harm you are causing legitimately
addresses a more significant harm that was already caused.
The goal of justification is to determine the action that
1) Causes the least harm to others 2) Can withstand public scrutiny, and
3) Would be ethically permissible for anyone in a similar situation.
So, what if there were a publicly known rule that students should cheat whenever they are
not likely to get caught?
Well, this would threaten the integrity of the class and weaken the value of a degree
from the university.
It would also destroy the university's ability to certify that students graduate with the
knowledge that they need in their field.
A general rule that allows academic cheating cannot be justified.
And, if you can't do something without making a secret exception for yourself, SMA tells us,
"Don't do it."
[Rich] If I would've just cheated, I just, I still wouldn't have known the material,
it wouldn't have done any good to me, wouldn't have done good to my professors who need to
know where I stand, and having an accurate grade on that test is important for that.
SMA encourages us to consider alternative courses of action that would minimize harm.
For example, you could tip off the professor anonymously and suggest that they consider
re-writing the exam.
Or you could ask the professor to distribute the old test to everyone in the class.
That way, no student would have an unfair advantage and it would give everyone a chance
to know what the professor thinks is most important.
Systematic Moral Analysis doesn't provide one right answer, but it does help us fully
evaluate a situation, think through possible courses of action, and avoid negative consequences
that might not have occurred to us at the start.
[Letisha] Sometimes, people get caught up in the benefits and lose sight of the fact
that what they're doing actually can have an impact on individual lives.
Empathy would be the first step into seeing how each person would react to whatever action
I would do.
[Samantha] So if you consider everyone else's stake in your decision,
I think you'll make a better decision.