Essay on general topics and themes

Consequentialist Ethicist Takes on an Honor Code

Consequentialist ethics views ethical decisions in terms of their consequences, not in terms of an abstract moral system that is universally applied to all circumstances. In this situation, regarding the dangers of academic cheating on computers, the risks of allowing such cheating to occur again in the college community must hold sway above unjustly accusing innocent persons and also the need to severely punish the guilty. In the scenario, two students turned in identical answers to the same exam. But there was a strong chance that one student had hacked into the account of the other student. The question is: which student is to blame? Student a is being punished while Student B. is set free, but it is equally plausible, from the facts stated that Student B. could be the hacker, not Student a.

A strict Kantian moralist might say that the overlap between the two essays indicates that some wrongdoing is in evidence, but since it cannot be proven which student is the transgressor, both students should be set free. However, a consequential ethicist would look upon the consequences of such an action upon the wider college community and note that this would essentially encourage other students to use computer technology as an excuse for cheating, even the obvious cheating of the scenario. Some consequences must be suffered because of the unjust actions of one student.

The consequentialist would suggest that both students should be punished, not through expulsion but by being forced to take a new exam under highly controlled circumstances. The frustration of having to take a new exam would act as a deterrent to future computer cheaters. However, the fact that both students would be allowed to prove their competency, and to some degree prove their innocence by succeeding at the exam, would also show mercy and some justice to the students. For the wider college community it would also have a positive consequential action by showing that cheating via computer was a serious offense with consequences.

One obvious counter-argument is that this goes against the idea so fundamental to the American ethos that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and it is better to let two guilty people go free than to punish one innocent individual. While this may be true of serious capital crimes, a college Honor Board has a responsibility not to simply uphold the rights of the individual but also to the need to create a livable and upright academic community. A community where cheating is tolerated is not academically healthy, and if people feel that others can get away with cheating, they will be less morally rigorous in terms of their own academic honesty.