Ethical Question

[daniellema13]

I guess. I've just never had any success with it. Kudos to those who have had success, I suppose.

Well in all fairness, I have no personal experience in this area so you have 1 up on me there.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bcat85]

We are having TWO discussions here.

One discussion is: what would be the philosophicall right thing to do in the given situation.

Another discussion is: what is the most beneficial reply to give in an interview situation.

What is philosophically/ethically right, depends on whose view you are subscribing to. I like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism, which is what seems like the most fundamentally correct definition of what is right and wrong. But I suppose, you can't tell an interviewer something like that.

So what is the interviewer looking for? A moral that is similar to his/her own? (aka mature morality ) A moral that will prove to be the most beneficial to society?

I would probably say that I would think about whether the good grades of my friend would negatively impact my career. If they do, then I would weigh the friendship up against the benefit of screwing up for her/him. Then I would consider what evidence I have. If I don't have much evidence, there is no point. Then I could just as well take out some of the big star gunners, by snitching and making false claims.

I can't believe you're going to be a physician someday.

 

[pianola]

Well in all fairness, I have no personal experience in this area so you have 1 up on me there.

I had one in recent memory. But he kind of falls into the category of 'hardened criminal' so maybe that's just a wee bit different.

 

[MilesMayhem]

I can't believe you're going to be a physician someday.

Neither can I .. But shortly...

But what's the outrage? Do you pick your friends and act towards them out of some other principle than what is good for you? You just decide to hang out with people based on their benefit, and not your own?

Or are you just puzzled by the fact that somebody can be completely honest about the nature of how their mind (probably) works?

I can't believe so many physicians or physicians-to-be can be so self-deceptive. But I guess it has survival benefits.

 

[MilesMayhem]

I do have a positive experience with a cheater. My roomie came home with a brand new football he had stolen whilst training with the national team. I told him that we both know how I am a moral relativist, but I wondered how he could be totally sure that nobody had seen him taking the ball, or that nobody would figure out. What situations would that bring him into because of one stupid ball? What if people saw it, and would take it into consideration when picking the team? The dude had totally not thought about it. (f-ing incredible, but I guess he just saw a golden oppurtunity).

The same dude is totally negligent on cleaning up the kitchen and carrying out the trash. I told him that I had observed his behavior and how he banked on my doing the stuff, if he just delayed his turn long enough. He smiled. I also told him that I understand it, and that it makes sense, and that I might have done the same in his situation (his appartment). But the consequence was passive-aggressive resistance from me, and that resulted in our place looking like hell. So I suggested that he would carry the trash out like one time for every third time I did it, or something like that. If he did a little, then I would cooperate. It worked. Open strategy with a cheater.

 

[stixx]

Actually, I have another ethical question that is UNDOUBTEDLY more common. Fall of last year I took a class in the college of medicine at my school. Among other resources, the teacher provided the class with an exam from the previous year on-line and was willing to answer questions about it.

However, naturally, there were older graduate students who had a far more comprehensive pile of previous exams. I suspect the teacher knew about this but never made any comment either way as to whether or not we should be able to obtain those or not. I would estimate about 85% of our 20-person class had access to a copy of the older exams; in fact, I was offered a packet myself by a close friend (I refused because I had too much work on my plate as it was, and I wouldn't have had time to look at the older exams anyway).

Assuming that the class average was about a 50% on these exams and that the teacher gave out a fair share of Cs, what would you have done?

Maybe it's because I go to a huge undergrad, but this kind of thing has happened in almost every class I've taken. The profs entirely expect it.

And it hardly makes a difference grades-wise. Unmotivated students are likely not the ones to go rooting around for old exams. Maybe if they're absolutely terrified of failing, the night before they might try and grab a hold of one and pre-draft answers, but that's not going to help them much. What ends up happening is the profs who actually care about teaching do come up with different exams each term. The past exams are only a helpful barometer. The "good" students use them to test themselves and find out which areas are their weakest. In reality they don't confer that much of an advantage to anyone besides peace of mind. Unless a prof specifically requests students not distribute past exam questions to younger students, it's fair game.

 

[cornpops21]

Don't you think it's ironic/unethical that people might be giving answers that don't necessarily coincide with what they would actually do in real life?

 

[Quix]

I just noticed the post linking to emotivism. Not a big fan of it personally (I've been giving lectures on metaethics and ethics this week), as I think it's waaaay too positivist and makes some fallacious arguments regarding truth and falsity of ethical statements. Additionally, strictly speaking, it says nothing about "right/wrong", but focuses on "fact/value" instead, arguing that value judgments are emotional preferences, which is vacuous.

 

[pianola]

Unless a prof specifically requests students not distribute past exam questions to younger students, it's fair game.

See, I agree with this statement. People share old exams all the time.

 

[LizzyM]

Okay, let's change the case!

A classmate in your undergrad or post-bac or grad program has invited you to join a weekly Sunday afternoon study group. You attend all semester. At one Sunday session, a classmate begins running through problems that aren't in the book, your group works through the problems, checks the answers against the answer sheet. You ask where the problems and answer sheet came from and are told that it is the actual exam that will be administered on Thursday... your study buddy is not authorized to have the exam and is vague about how it was acquired. You might suspect that the buddy may have stolen it, hacked a computer, or bribed or blackmailed someone to get it.

What do you do?

 

[pianola]

Okay, let's change the case!

A classmate in your undergrad or post-bac or grad program has invited you to join a weekly Sunday afternoon study group. You attend all semester. At one Sunday session, a classmate begins running through problems that aren't in the book, your group works through the problems, checks the answers against the answer sheet. You ask where the problems and answer sheet came from and are told that it is the actual exam that will be administered on Thursday... your study buddy is not authorized to have the exam and is vague about how it was acquired. You might suspect that the buddy may have stolen it, hacked a computer, or bribed or blackmailed someone to get it.

What do you do?

No questions about that one! The situation would seriously scare me if it happened. I'd leave the group ASAP with some kind of excuse about not feeling well. I'd e-mail the professor about wanting to set up a meeting (even though telling him would clearly mean I'd have to take a different exam.) No question in my mind about it. This kind of falls under "blatant and horrible things students should not do." Heck, that falls under theft and probably invasion of privacy. The professor could prosecute.

That's a serious business. I wouldn't mess with it.

 

[MilesMayhem]

...makes some fallacious arguments regarding truth and falsity of ethical statements.

You got me interested. What is the fallacy?

Additionally, strictly speaking, it says nothing about "right/wrong", but focuses on "fact/value" instead, arguing that value judgments are emotional preferences, which is vacuous.

Translated into English → you don't like that emotivism states that right and wrong is a construct of the human mind.

But I am sure there are situations were a special action would bring about an outcome which is the best possible for everyone involved. If you want to, semantically, you could call that action, resulting in that outcome, for the RIGHT action.

But as soon as there are some individuals who would benefit more from another strategy, there is no universal RIGHT, that would be YOUR mind telling you that e.g a utilitarian solution would be the right one. Is there anything in that statement you think is fallacious?

 

[MilesMayhem]

Okay, let's change the case!

A classmate in your undergrad or post-bac or grad program has invited you to join a weekly Sunday afternoon study group. You attend all semester. At one Sunday session, a classmate begins running through problems that aren't in the book, your group works through the problems, checks the answers against the answer sheet. You ask where the problems and answer sheet came from and are told that it is the actual exam that will be administered on Thursday... your study buddy is not authorized to have the exam and is vague about how it was acquired. You might suspect that the buddy may have stolen it, hacked a computer, or bribed or blackmailed someone to get it.

What do you do?

I need more information. How probable is it that he will get exposed, and that I will be listed as an accomplice? Could they single me out from a good result? What about other people outside our study group with a good result that wasn't in on it?

The professor can prosecute all he wants to, what crime would they charge me with? I didn't ask to see the paper. I didn't steal it? I might face an uncomfortable situation telling anybody.

I'd buy the dude a beer, and take ace the exam. The small benefits of being in a study group.

Then, if the cover was blown, and I was called in on the carpet, I would just sit there. I wouldn't give away any information, which is very suspicious of course, because innocent people are always eager to show how innocent they are by being overly helpful or overinclusive. Then I would ask them if they wanted to go outside and trash a sportscar, like in that big lebowski film, and ask for a white russian, if they were gonna keep me there for long.

 

[pianola]

The professor can prosecute all he wants to, what crime would they charge me with? I didn't ask to see the paper. I didn't steal it? I might face an uncomfortable situation telling anybody.

(1) Knowledge of a crime without taking action on it is a crime in and of itself (Good Samaritan Law?). Also benefitting from someone else's crime is a crime. And you're probably violating your school's honor code. And probably grounds for getting kicked out.

(2) The odds of getting caught are pretty good assuming a study group of 3-4 students. SOMEONE will tell, believe me, and when word gets out that you were 'in' on what happened, you'll be in trouble. Someone will tell his gf/bf/cousin/S.O. and they WILL find out.

 

[Retsage]

Neither can I .. But shortly...

But what's the outrage? Do you pick your friends and act towards them out of some other principle than what is good for you? You just decide to hang out with people based on their benefit, and not your own?

Or are you just puzzled by the fact that somebody can be completely honest about the nature of how their mind (probably) works?

I can't believe so many physicians or physicians-to-be can be so self-deceptive. But I guess it has survival benefits.

Please, please, please tell the adcoms this. Especially if you're interviewing at any of the schools I am. Please, please, please!


Lizzy, is there actually a correct answer to your questions? No matter what you do, you end up as either a cheat or a Judas of sorts. Or a sociopath, if you go the route of the poster I quoted above.

I suppose I'd talk about how I'd discuss it with my friend, try to make sure everything was okay with him and see why he was risking his career, remind him of the really nasty consequences of cheating, then send an anonymous email (or phone call) to the prof telling him his test has been compromised and he should rewrite it. This both covers my ass, keeps me ethical, and ensures that my friend doesn't take a fall for what may be a temporary issue causing his behavior.

 

[pianola]

Haha, yeah just a tad sociopathic...In theory, perhaps I see Miles' point. In practice, it just wouldn't be terribly fulfilling to live like that.

I doubt that there's a 'right' or 'wrong' answer to the question. But some are more nearly correct than others!

 

[MilesMayhem]

Haha, yeah just a tad sociopathic...In theory, perhaps I see Miles' point. In practice, it just wouldn't be terribly fulfilling to live like that.

I doubt that there's a 'right' or 'wrong' answer to the question. But some are more nearly correct than others!

My point was that people grow up, learn who they benefit from being loyal to, who they need love from, who they should cooperate with, and then their mind constructs something called principles as a guidance and reassurance tool.

My 2nd point is that these guidance points differ from person to person, and which guidance moral is most beneficial seems to differ from situation to situation. Whether I am a sociopath or not is a different issue, you gotta have some major psych talent if you can make such a diagnosis over the net, especially before you have started med school. But I guess all the real gunners know the curriculum by heart before they start out.

I still think the scenario is interesting.

1) Knowledge of a crime without taking action on it is a crime in and of itself (Good Samaritan Law?). Also benefitting from someone else's crime is a crime. And you're probably violating your school's honor code. And probably grounds for getting kicked out.

(2) The odds of getting caught are pretty good assuming a study group of 3-4 students. SOMEONE will tell, believe me, and when word gets out that you were 'in' on what happened, you'll be in trouble. Someone will tell his gf/bf/cousin/S.O. and they WILL find out.

Strategy for someone NOT to tell:
- play with open cards.
- tell everyone in the group about the snitching / not -snitching dilemma.
- this puts pressure on the smart guy with the test to explain how he got it.
- you can then assess the risk of being caught.
- you can then all together rat him out with good conscience, and collaborate on doing it, in an open discussion. (I assume he ain't packing a gun.)
- perhaps the guy will even offer you money for not snitching.
- if you all accept the dough, you have sealed the deal of having become accomplices. You will then all benefit from shutting the hell up.
Ace the exam. Da daaaah.

Strategy if you get caught.
You thought it was a previous exam.
You weren't in the group as it was introduced.
Cut the interrogators off at the pass, refuse to compromize yourself. Let them face the possibility of court action. They could lose a bit of money on it.

 

[pianola]

^OK, ethical or unethical, that's too complicated for me

I'll just take my chances the old-fashioned way.

 

[AspiringOne]

The notion that 'we' can reshape our friends' "moral fibers" is indeed laughable as you've pointed out. But i don't believe that everyone who cheats is a 'cheater.' Sure a good majority are prone to cheat again and again, and unfortunately will probably carry that with them into practice...if that is the impression one gets from their friend, then they have a lot of thinking to do that will weigh such things as benefit, risk, professionalism, etc. But i also think that there are those whose "moral fibers" would prevent them from cheating under normal circumstances but may in extreme situations make a huge mistake and regret it...and learn from it. "talking" with a friend might reveal that there is more going on than meets the eye and it may in fact turn out to be the action with the most benefit for all players.

This is precisely what I was thinking. For some people it could be a one time gig- maybe they completely forgot about it or had a traumatic experience that kept them from studying. Is that to say these individuals couln't be competent doctors? Nope. They'll know the material when they leave and that's what matters. You could talk to them about the one incident and find out what's going on if you want an explanation but whether they cheat the system again is not something you or anyone else will influence.

The big question you have to answer is would you rat on a friend or, rather, would you tell your interviewer that you would rat on a friend? To be honest, I would use the "talk to my friend" argument also, even though in practice it would probably do nothing. But if the interviewer straight up asked if I would rat, I would be honest and say no, unless it affected me.

 

[pianola]

I know someone in high school who got BOTH arrested and expelled from my high school magnet program for stealing teachers' teaching supplies (for past AP exams).




...



Of course, the student got into Stanford with a scholarship (naturally), so clearly things didn't turn out so badly for him.

 

[AspiringOne]

You got me interested. What is the fallacy?

Translated into English → you don't like that emotivism states that right and wrong is a construct of the human mind.

But I am sure there are situations were a special action would bring about an outcome which is the best possible for everyone involved. If you want to, semantically, you could call that action, resulting in that outcome, for the RIGHT action.

But as soon as there are some individuals who would benefit more from another strategy, there is no universal RIGHT, that would be YOUR mind telling you that e.g a utilitarian solution would be the right one. Is there anything in that statement you think is fallacious?

While sociopathic, I admire the logic in your arguments. But, I think there is an aspect you need to consider. As you said, the RIGHT action could be seen as the best possible action for everyone involved. And you imply that it becomes blurry as soon as some people are able to benefit more from another method. But I think what you are forgetting is that morale fiber, "mental construct" or not, is very real. That is, by choosing a method that benefits you more but hurts others, you may find yourself plagued with guilt. Such guilt then becomes a problem for YOU and can cause stress. So, as it turns out, you do NOT benefit from such a method because it rests on your conscience.

Now I'm sure you will say that you would not be affected by such guilt and would therefore suffer no stress or problems resulting from it. That is where I have no answer for you. There is no factual evidence that giving yourself the upper hand while hurting fellow classmates is wrong. But would you want someone to do that to you?

Regarding Lizzy M's new case study, I would anonymous e-mail or tell the professor but not diclose names. I actually recall this happening in high school and I think that's what I did.

 

[pianola]

I think the problem with an anonymous e-mail in Lizzy's situation is that if you DON'T mention yourself in the e-mail, someone else will say "Well, pianola was there, too" and you'll be in trouble. If you DO mention yourself, then it's not anonymous any more...or at least someone will be wondering "Why did the anonymous tipper say that pianola was just an innocent bystander???"

 

[AspiringOne]

I think the problem with an anonymous e-mail in Lizzy's situation is that if you DON'T mention yourself in the e-mail, someone else will say "Well, pianola was there, too" and you'll be in trouble. If you DO mention yourself, then it's not anonymous any more...or at least someone will be wondering "Why did the anonymous tipper say that pianola was just an innocent bystander???"

I should clarify- in the anonymous e-mail, I would not say any names. I would simply say that the test answers have been uncovered and that the test should be remade. No one gets in trouble and no one gets to cheat.

 

[pianola]

I should clarify- in the anonymous e-mail, I would not say any names. I would simply say that the test answers have been uncovered and that the test should be remade. No one gets in trouble and no one gets to cheat.

The teacher will ask you what happened. Probably ask you to explain yourself in person, though. I had that happen to me. One of the faculty at my school was spreading nasty lies about another faculty member and I remember getting the third degree about an incident I didn't want to talk about.

EDIT: Boy, I seem to have encountered more than my share of moral shortcomings ;-)

 

[AspiringOne]

The teacher will ask you what happened. Probably ask you to explain yourself in person, though. I had that happen to me. One of the faculty at my school was spreading nasty lies about another faculty member and I remember getting the third degree about an incident I didn't want to talk about.

EDIT: Boy, I seem to have encountered more than my share of moral shortcomings ;-)

If the e-mail is anonymous...the teacher wouldn't know who you are. So if they ask to meet with you in person, say no. If they ask for your name, say no. I find it hard to believe a teacher would go after you when YOU took it upon yourself to keep the cheating from happening in the first place.

 

[MilesMayhem]

But I think what you are forgetting is that morale fiber, "mental construct" or not, is very real. That is, by choosing a method that benefits you more but hurts others, you may find yourself plagued with guilt. Such guilt then becomes a problem for YOU and can cause stress. So, as it turns out, you do NOT benefit from such a method because it rests on your conscience.

Totally, 100% agree. Last summer, I sat on the roof of my father's house, hammering nails, and while resting, I started a discussion with him about why I wasn't stealing more. Let's face it, we all are pretty smart. I read somewhere that the average IQ of an MD is 125 which is heaps above the average joe. I am sure that I could slip quite a few mars bars into my pockets, without getting caught. I don't believe in moral absolutism, so what is this conscience thing that is keeping me?

First; nobody likes a parasite. In fact, hardly anybody likes people talking the way I am doing in this thread. Just look at the response, sociopath, etc. If I started stealing, even if I was very good, it would require me to keep a secret to ensure that I wasn't hated by my peers, or lost the love of my parents. Now, I read in my psych book that kids generally need to feel unconditional love. When you think of how bad it can feel having to keep a secret, it makes sense that you wouldn't want to engage in behavior that you couldn't tell anyone about.

I don't think it is the moral, the Bible or whatever that keeps us from doing "wrong" things. I think it is a game of what benefits us the most, and emotions do very much count in that game. I can tell you the cynical benefit of stealing 1000 times, but you will still not engage in such behavior. You would look yourself in the mirror and see a person nobody would wanna interact with. You would lose your identity, an identity you need to uphold to be somebody worthy of love. And that hurts. (Disclaimer; in this psychobabble are many simplistic theories included that cannot be proven)

Now I'm sure you will say that you would not be affected by such guilt and would therefore suffer no stress or problems resulting from it.

Oh, I will. I didn't say I was a sociopath. That wasn't my own claim. That was more like indignation of my peers.

That is where I have no answer for you. There is no factual evidence that giving yourself the upper hand while hurting fellow classmates is wrong.

If we skip the right-wrong stuff, we could ask whether it would be beneficial or not. In most situations, you are better off playing nice!! If it is obvious that you are a sniper, then people will avoid you like the plague. The scary part is those who can occationally act like snipers, without you knowing before it is too late. Like bad friends abandoning you, when you are no longer of any good use. Although these people sadly seem to climb well in society, I am not sure if they have a satisfying emotional life with their cold demeanor. That is the dilemma we face every day. Act in a way that preserves our niceness, and still follow our interest and not get exploited. Moral reasoning is perhaps the way people try to justify how they do the balancing, and then applying that principle to other areas they aren't confronted with on a daily basis, like abortion.

But would you want someone to do that to you?

There are situations where my a-hole actions don't necessarily cause a boomerang effect. Doping is one example. Let's say you and I were to compete against each other. Following options exist:
- I dope, you don't. I get an advantage.
- I don't dope, you don't dope. Neither gets an advantage.
- I dope, you dope. Neither gets an advantage.
- I don't dope, you dope. I get a disadvantage.
Seeing as you can't know whether I dope or not, the dominant strategy is to defect, to betray, to dope. Of course I would convince you that I was clean first. They are all clean, you know? The golden rule doesn't help you out here. It is only when you know how I have acted before, and we play the game many times, with different people, that playing cooperative gets beneficial. It is the classical tits-for-tats.

 

[AspiringOne]

Totally, 100% agree. Last summer, I sat on the roof of my father's house, hammering nails, and while resting, I started a discussion with him about why I wasn't stealing more. Let's face it, we all are pretty smart. I read somewhere that the average IQ of an MD is 125 which is heaps above the average joe. I am sure that I could slip quite a few mars bars into my pockets, without getting caught. I don't believe in moral absolutism, so what is this conscience thing that is keeping me?

First; nobody likes a parasite. In fact, hardly anybody likes people talking the way I am doing in this thread. Just look at the response, sociopath, etc. If I started stealing, even if I was very good, it would require me to keep a secret to ensure that I wasn't hated by my peers, or lost the love of my parents. Now, I read in my psych book that kids generally need to feel unconditional love. When you think of how bad it can feel having to keep a secret, it makes sense that you wouldn't want to engage in behavior that you couldn't tell anyone about.

I don't think it is the moral, the Bible or whatever that keeps us from doing "wrong" things. I think it is a game of what benefits us the most, and emotions do very much count in that game. I can tell you the cynical benefit of stealing 1000 times, but you will still not engage in such behavior. You would look yourself in the mirror and see a person nobody would wanna interact with. You would lose your identity, an identity you need to uphold to be somebody worthy of love. And that hurts. (Disclaimer; in this psychobabble are many simplistic theories included that cannot be proven)

Fair enough. But what you see as an emotional downfall, someone else might see as moral wrongdoing or sin. That is, while you may not commit crime because you would feel bad about yourself, others may not commit because they would feel bad in the eyes of God. It's a very deep question to ask where guilt comes from, but I think it's way deeper than what I'm able to discuss, at least at 4AM .

Oh, I will. I didn't say I was a sociopath. That wasn't my own claim. That was more like indignation of my peers.

Sorry about that. I thought from one of your previous posts you called yourself a sociopath but I must have misread.

If we skip the right-wrong stuff, we could ask whether it would be beneficial or not. In most situations, you are better off playing nice!! If it is obvious that you are a sniper, then people will avoid you like the plague. The scary part is those who can occationally act like snipers, without you knowing before it is too late. Like bad friends abandoning you, when you are no longer of any good use. Although these people sadly seem to climb well in society, I am not sure if they have a satisfying emotional life with their cold demeanor. That is the dilemma we face every day. Act in a way that preserves our niceness, and still follow our interest and not get exploited. Moral reasoning is perhaps the way people try to justify how they do the balancing, and then applying that principle to other areas they aren't confronted with on a daily basis, like abortion.

Interesting philosophy. But it's worth mentioning that moral reasoning isn't a roll of the dice. What one deems moral must be SOMEHOW connected to environmental factors (parents influence) and/or genetics (natural tendencies in personality). That's what gives moral reasoning value- the affirmation that such behavior is good and acceptable. And then you've got the headache that happens when it becomes "in our interest" TO "preserve our niceness," which is what we were talking about before. Man, my head's starting to spin .

There are situations where my a-hole actions don't necessarily cause a boomerang effect. Doping is one example. Let's say you and I were to compete against each other. Following options exist:
- I dope, you don't. I get an advantage.
- I don't dope, you don't dope. Neither gets an advantage.
- I dope, you dope. Neither gets an advantage.
- I don't dope, you dope. I get a disadvantage.
Seeing as you can't know whether I dope or not, the dominant strategy is to defect, to betray, to dope. Of course I would convince you that I was clean first. They are all clean, you know? The golden rule doesn't help you out here. It is only when you know how I have acted before, and we play the game many times, with different people, that playing cooperative gets beneficial. It is the classical tits-for-tats.

With what little I know of economics, that sounds alot like Nash Game Theory. But here's the catch when it comes to cheating. Because my morals may be different from those of a cheater, I may be more inclined to feel guilt and have it eat away at me even if we both commit the same act. In such a circumstance, if he cheated, he would be at an "advantage" regardless of whether I cheated or not- on one side my grades take a hit and the other side my conscience takes a hit. In that case, it would be in my best interest to keep him from cheating. This is, of course, assuming the test were graded on a curve.

Such a presentation almost implies that morality is actually a burden. But we must also view the other side of the coin- when we perform acts that we consider moral, we feel happiness in self-satisfaction. Someone devoid of morality gets neither the good nor the bad.

 

[MilesMayhem]

Interesting philosophy. But it's worth mentioning that moral reasoning isn't a roll of the dice. What one deems moral must be SOMEHOW connected to environmental factors (parents influence) and/or genetics (natural tendencies in personality). That's what gives moral reasoning value- the affirmation that such behavior is good and acceptable. And then you've got the headache that happens when it becomes "in our interest" TO "preserve our niceness," which is what we were talking about before. Man, my head's starting to spin .

Ah, but the genes have been selectioned, and the parent's influence isn't just random. And nevertheless, rules of games aren't changed by how you feel about them, but it might place restrictions on you as a player, like you point out yourself.

Such a presentation almost implies that morality is actually a burden. But we must also view the other side of the coin- when we perform acts that we consider moral, we feel happiness in self-satisfaction. Someone devoid of morality gets neither the good nor the bad.

If you didn't have these dogmas implanted in your conscience, you wouldn't be dissatisfied by not acting morally, or just keeping the wallet you found on the street.

Moral conditioning makes you work in society to an extent. People who disregard the morals of a society, tend to get in trouble. But that might be because there is something wrong with these people to begin with.

What if you raised a normal kid with like an analytic machine, and told him to put a price on his human interactions, and define moral as the means to maximize his well-being? Would that kid then be incapable of feeling love? Do we need the dogmas and lies to love each other? I know that the love from my close family is conditional, but the conditions are still very good.

 

[Retsage]

I think the problem with an anonymous e-mail in Lizzy's situation is that if you DON'T mention yourself in the e-mail, someone else will say "Well, pianola was there, too" and you'll be in trouble. If you DO mention yourself, then it's not anonymous any more...or at least someone will be wondering "Why did the anonymous tipper say that pianola was just an innocent bystander???"

Except that you always have access to the email account to verify it was you, should the need arise.


PS - Miles, regardless of your incessant attempts to moralize and justify your actions, they squarely fall in the realm of sociopathy. Ergo, arguing with you about morality and conscience is about as worthwhile as arguing with a blind person about who's wearing the prettiest dress. You simply cannot understand and no, this does not make you an elite individual.

 

[pianola]

I guess the problem I see with the second situation LizzyM presented is that potentially hacking into a teacher's computer falls squarely on the grounds of illegal. I mean, I just don't see how someone with otherwise good morals would go to ALL the trouble of actually obtaining the upcoming test. This is clearly unethical, illegal, and presents a clear and obvious unfair advantage over the rest of the class. I fully suspect that if I encountered this situation, it would not be the first time Mr. Thief has stolen exams (call me a cynic).

I would give the name of the thief to the professor. I get the distinct feeling Mr. Thief has been given second chances in middle school, high school, and beyond. To do something so egregious in such an important situation calls for punishment. And the professor will better know how to take action if he knows who has been causing the problem. Why wait until Mr. Thief has compromised the integrity of a second exam to report a name? Prevention is worth an ounce of cure...

I could be wrong about Mr. Thief and if I feel that I am wrong, I might consider sending the anonymous letter. But most people I know wouldn't think twice about whether or not it was ethical to steal an exam. Pretty much, that's in the realm of people who have been cheating their whole lives.

 

[Retsage]

Because the person is a friend and you don't go ruining the life of your friend, especially when he took a big enough risk to take you into his confidence. While I may not be pro-hacking of computers, I surely do not think having him kicked out of med school (with Christ knows how much debt over his shoulders) is the appropriate response to it. Yet, undoubtedly, that is exactly what the administration will do. I have a responsibility to my friends, not to the administrators, as the former should usually have my back and the latter will throw me into the flames as soon as it becomes necessary.

Moreover, the integrity of the test is not an issue, as you are not marked on a curve. He won't be able to hack into the USMLE computers.

 

[pianola]

Because the person is a friend and you don't go ruining the life of your friend, especially when he took a big enough risk to take you into his confidence. While I may not be pro-hacking of computers, I surely do not think having him kicked out of med school (with Christ knows how much debt over his shoulders) is the appropriate response to it. Yet, undoubtedly, that is exactly what the administration will do. I have a responsibility to my friends, not to the administrators, as the former should usually have my back and the latter will throw me into the flames as soon as it becomes necessary.

Moreover, the integrity of the test is not an issue, as you are not marked on a curve. He won't be able to hack into the USMLE computers.

Well...good point, I guess.

A few thoughts though:
I guess I have a very difficult time envisioning this person as a close friend. An acquaintance, perhaps, but...I mean, I tend to have an idea whether or not my close friends are liable to steal exams or not. And usually if they are, I try to avoid the situation like the plague.

Secondly, professors have mercy. Mr. Thief is not going to get kicked out the first time he's been caught in med school. But SOMEONE should know, I think. I don't want to put myself in the position of moral police, deciding whether or not it was Mr. Thief's first time, second time, third time, yada yada. I mean, suppose he cheats again and you don't know about it? Suppose the teacher finds out that it WAS him who cheated and that you never came forward to give his name? Professors are usually fairly even-handed about cheating issues and likely the student wouldn't be punished with more than a slap on the wrist. Seriously, professors are incredibly hesitant to punish crimes in my experience. Especially if the student in question is paying $40,000 a year to your institution. Like I said, I have direct experience with this.

Thirdly, I do think the integrity of a test can be compromised. (1) you're always ranked in medical school (that's how AOA is determined) and those rankings are based on grades, curved or otherwise. (2) whether you're ranked or NOT, there are issues of basic fairness that are compromised when one person has resources not available to the rest of the class. (3) when the professor finds out that 'someone' has been cheating but doesn't know whom, likely the whole class will be punished in some way or another -- taking the exams under stricter/more unpleasant conditions, probably.

Fourthly, sometimes you have to tell the professor who cheated in order to resolve the security issues that arose when the cheater stole the exam in the first place.

 

[Retsage]

1) How many acquaintances do you have which would willingly confide in you something that was eligible to get them kicked out of school?

2) I doubt this. At my undergrad institution, just cheating would get you removed from the class, under academic suspension, and liable for expulsion (you would see a tribune and they would decide depending on the circumstances). Hacking into a computer and stealing the test? Forget about it. You'd be kicked out so fast, it isn't even funny. Now, add to this the heavy moral imperative of medical school, and I imagine you'd be removed before you could so much as blink.

3) My position in the class, while important, is not worth selling out a friend over. I'm simply not that selfish. As for fairness, I find the argument rather irrelevant. It doesn't exist in any shape, way, or form regardless.

4) I don't see how or why.

 

[MilesMayhem]

PS - Miles, regardless of your incessant attempts to moralize and justify your actions, they squarely fall in the realm of sociopathy.

I can't recall having said anything about my own actions.

Ergo, arguing with you about morality and conscience is about as worthwhile as arguing with a blind person about who's wearing the prettiest dress. You simply cannot understand and no, this does not make you an elite individual.

Its true that I believe that I am smarter in some areas than the average joe. I also have my deficits.

I like how you employ catch-22s to troll me. You ain't too bad. But I ain't ticked off too easily by people seeking gratification by taking shots at others. It is pretty common, something you will find out for yourself, once you start actually accumulating instead of faking knowledge.

 

[MilesMayhem]

Because the person is a friend and you don't go ruining the life of your friend, especially when he took a big enough risk to take you into his confidence.

According to your morals, what would be right if this friend let you in on his planned bank robbery? Or murder?

 

[Retsage]

Every post where you explain yourself is an attempt at justification. And it's not much of a Catch-22, really. It's a simple assertion - you strike me as a sociopath. Perhaps I am mistaken and you are not, but your posts do not give me the impression that I am. To discuss morality with someone who does not understand it is simply a waste of everyone's time.

And please do not compare murder and robbery to cheating on a test. It is purely silly.

 

[MilesMayhem]

And please do not compare murder and robbery to cheating on a test. It is purely silly.

If the only argument that mattered, was that you should not snitch on a friend that confides in you, then you are the one who haven't made room for a distinction of what is confided.

My position in the class, while important, is not worth selling out a friend over. I'm simply not that selfish. As for fairness, I find the argument rather irrelevant. It doesn't exist in any shape, way, or form regardless.

Everything is selfish. You are lying, and you deny it to yourself, in order to see yourself as a goodie goodie.

The truth: Your position in class is not worth a) compromizing your self-image as someone who is a non-selfish person. b) not worth losing a good friend over.

The lesser good the friend in question is, the higher the probability that you will rat him/her out. It is really that simple. Which is probably the reason why you are so bent on labelling me a sociopath (unlike the real psychiatrists on this board, where I have engaged in similar discussions.) You are simply defending yourself from seeing the brutal, cynical truth.

 

[Caesar]

Let's keep this thread on topic and avoid any personal attacks on members.

 

[MilesMayhem]

Let's keep this thread on topic and avoid any personal attacks on members.

Agree, let's keep it clean.

Every post where you explain yourself is an attempt at justification.

Gotta admire her mind/motivation-reading capabilities, though.

 

[LizzyM]

Because the person is a friend and you don't go ruining the life of your friend, especially when he took a big enough risk to take you into his confidence. While I may not be pro-hacking of computers, I surely do not think having him kicked out of med school (with Christ knows how much debt over his shoulders) is the appropriate response to it. Yet, undoubtedly, that is exactly what the administration will do. I have a responsibility to my friends, not to the administrators, as the former should usually have my back and the latter will throw me into the flames as soon as it becomes necessary.

In the case, you are not medical students, you are undergrads or post-bacs or graduate students (e.g. SMP)

Moreover, the integrity of the test is not an issue, as you are not marked on a curve. He won't be able to hack into the USMLE computers.

Who says you aren't marked on a curve? The case left that up in the air. Even if you aren't marked on a curve, faculty have been known to note outstanding performance in an exam in a LOR so there may be some advantage to doing well/better than your peers.

 

[MilesMayhem]

Thirdly, I do think the integrity of a test can be compromised. (1) you're always ranked in medical school (that's how AOA is determined) and those rankings are based on grades, curved or otherwise. (2) whether you're ranked or NOT, there are issues of basic fairness that are compromised when one person has resources not available to the rest of the class. (3) when the professor finds out that 'someone' has been cheating but doesn't know whom, likely the whole class will be punished in some way or another -- taking the exams under stricter/more unpleasant conditions, probably.

True.

Turning your friend in is a good way to escape collective punishment from the professor.
But you might get collectively punished by your peers. If I was in your study group, and it became evident that one of us had snitched, do you think that I wouldn't find out? I could break the windscreen of your car, and see if I could set out rumors to have you isolated from future study groups.

2nd, I actually agree with Retsage. If this case (which isn't bank robbery) is enough to turn your friend in, then you have a strange definition of the word "friend." Either you don't really have a good friendship, or you have a really collective-manipulated consciousness. It is logical to show loyalty towards those close to you. People who have rigidly adapted to a structure of feeling responsible for the whole of society, based on some arbitrary right/wrong structures, freak me out. That is fundamentalism for you.

 

[8744]

In an interview:

What would you do if you caught one of your friends cheating on a test in medical school?

Correct Answer:

"I am not the 'Cheating Police' and I am not going to be 'catching' anybody doing anything. If my friend wants to cheat that's his business. Not only will I not mention it to him, thereby formally announcing that I know he is in violation of the school's honor code and exposing myself to disciplinary action if he is caught before I can turn him in, but as long as he didn't try to involve me in his unethical behavior I wouldn't dream of turning him in anyway. No nebulous concept of social justice or impending karma could get me to rat out a friend."

Of course, no one will say this.

 

[LizzyM]

In the latest case, there are no friends mentioned, just "classmates" and in one case the word "buddy" (as in "study buddy").

What is academic integrity?

Does friendship or affiliation with those who have committed a crime or broken a university rule override your responsibility as a student in the academic community?

Is stealing, hacking, bribing or blackmailing to gain access to unauthorized materials wrong?

Is merely benefiting from unauthorized access to the exam wrong?

Would you approach this differently if you were not a member of the study group that had access to the unauthorized material but learned about it a few hours before the exam? or the day the grades from the exam were posted?

 

[Retsage]

Correct Answer:

"I am not the 'Cheating Police' and I am not going to be 'catching' anybody doing anything. If my friend wants to cheat that's his business. Not only will I not mention it to him, thereby formally announcing that I know he is in violation of the school's honor code and exposing myself to disciplinary action if he is caught before I can turn him in, but as long as he didn't try to involve me in his unethical behavior I wouldn't dream of turning him in anyway. No nebulous concept of social justice or impending karma could get me to rat out a friend."

Of course, no one will say this.

Amen.

 

[8744]

...Does friendship or affiliation with those who have committed a crime or broken a university rule override your responsibility as a student in the academic community?

Is stealing, hacking, bribing or blackmailing to gain access to unauthorized materials wrong?

Is merely benefiting from unauthorized access to the exam wrong?

Yes. There is no such thing as an "academic community." Your medical school is a big bureaucratic organization that has zero loyalty to you and will throw you under the bus at the first sign of trouble.

Yes. of course.

Yes. And I will definitely 'rat out' anybody who gave me, unsolicited, unauthorized access to exam material. Now they have crossed the line from behavior that just effects them to ruining my career.

 

[Adnama]

Yes. There is no such thing as an "academic community." Your medical school is a big bureaucratic organization that has zero loyalty to you and will throw you under the bus at the first sign of trouble.

Yes. of course.

Yes. And I will definitely 'rat out' anybody who gave me, unsolicited, unauthorized access to exam material. Now they have crossed the line from behavior that just effects them to ruining my career.

Hey Panda Bear,
Do you miss Graham W? So sad to see the liberal, Obama loving, single payer enthusiast leave the internet.

Do you think residency has changed him yet?

 

[MilesMayhem]

Does friendship or affiliation with those who have committed a crime or broken a university rule override your responsibility as a student in the academic community?

1) What responsibility?
2) The friendship outweighs the potential downside, the better the friendship is.

Is stealing, hacking, bribing or blackmailing to gain access to unauthorized materials wrong?

It is wrong if you get caught.

Is merely benefiting from unauthorized access to the exam wrong?

If you get punished for it.

Would you approach this differently if you were not a member of the study group that had access to the unauthorized material but learned about it a few hours before the exam? or the day the grades from the exam were posted?

That is a good question. Judging from previous behavior, I wouldn't. But I probably should, for my own good.

 

[MilesMayhem]

Correct Answer:

"I am not the 'Cheating Police' and I am not going to be 'catching' anybody doing anything. If my friend wants to cheat that's his business. Not only will I not mention it to him, thereby formally announcing that I know he is in violation of the school's honor code and exposing myself to disciplinary action if he is caught before I can turn him in, but as long as he didn't try to involve me in his unethical behavior I wouldn't dream of turning him in anyway. No nebulous concept of social justice or impending karma could get me to rat out a friend."

Of course, no one will say this.

I can tell you are a VWF mascot with a strong sense of justice, and an impeccable ability to see the BS in the claimed moral high road proclaimed by institutions and their manipulation.

I still disagree with you, though.

 

[pianola]

Yes. And I will definitely 'rat out' anybody who gave me, unsolicited, unauthorized access to exam material. Now they have crossed the line from behavior that just effects them to ruining my career.

Agree in principle.

I don't want to call it 'ratting out' but yes, my 'study partner' has put me in jeopardy by telling me about unauthorized materials that he's stolen...

Not worth risking my career over this.

 

[LizzyM]

It is wrong if you get caught.

You should make this your response to any ethical question you are asked. For you, it sounds like the right answer and one that will help the adcom understand where you are coming from.