Gurdur

I think this question was already answered by livius drusus with the following from page 3 of this thread:
Even with the key of the username, it could still all be arguably taken as hearsay --- a position which the Dean seemed perhaps to have taken.

Autonemesis

Hmmm. I find that position to be incoherent. On the one hand, you agree that there is no expectation of privacy, yet on the other Sakpo was under some obligation to try and protect it anyway? That does not make much sense to me.

Gurdur

There's a very real practical and therefore ethical difference between:

1. the fact that information is theoretically floating out there somewhere, freely available
   
   and
   
2. shoving the information under someone's nose

And after (B) is where all the other ethical questions come into play, once you've first made the ethical decision to do (B).

brighid

Thanks Gurdur, I really am operating on sensory overload at the moment.

Brighid

Gurdur

No worries, and join the club.

I went to the dentist today to get two fangs repaired; and I haven't been feeling my best since installing windows in my attic roof.

brighid

Gurdur,

So if it's only heresay without specific personal information then what real use would it have? And if one is only passing along heresay doesn't that bring their own credibility into play, and therefore making the situation even more tenuous?

I am not sure if providing someone with information they can choose to read, take under advisement or simply ignore is "shoving it under someone's nose."

Is tipping off the authorities to potentially, or very relevant information unethical?

I really do think the context of the venue - public vs. private - protected (fiduciary) vs. unprotected is extremely relevant in these sorts of cases.

If BM did not protect her anonymity when she has the ability to do so, especially given her newness to this forum ... should additional protection be given to her? Does anyone actually have that obligation?

Then I believe we must question our "communal" responsibility to abetting wrong doing as it applies to this case. Should one sit silently when one can otherwise assist in a situation, either to prevent future harm by establishing a precident, to insure a fuller picture is available for those determining punishment ...

This is such a multi-layered issue that it's difficult to come to full agreement. I am not sure if such a thing can be achieved, but it is an important discussion in my opinion.

Brighid

livius drusus

Think of it this way. CNN is not legally obliged to digitally mask the face and voice of the mafia hitman it's interviewing, and the mafia hitman has no legal right to a blue dot instead of a head. But CNN does have a duty to consider its own ethical obligations to the story, the source, its viewers, the possible consequences of exposure, etc and determine the best course of action from there.

If Sakpo had replaced every instance of Blue_Metal with Blue_Dot and made any mention of IIDB all gravelly and illegible, the information he relayed about her academic dishonesty would be unchanged, but her atheism, which is not germane to the issue at hand anyway, would be shielded from the scrutiny of xian college administrators. I believe that would have been a stronger ethical stance than simply forwarding a couple of links.

Gurdur

Well, now, let's agree at least fully on one thing:

this is a damned complex problem.

My own aims here have been:

1. To get everyone to realise just how ticklish it all is,
   
2. To reassure some that making hard and fast judgments on the basis of hard-held principles is still OK,
   
3. but to get everyone to realise there's a hell of a lot to making judgments

You also ask questions that I think are unanswerable; you see, if you send the info to the Dean, but the Dean doesn't use it, then that plays no role in the morality of your own decision;
in making a moral decision, the facts, and all the facts, are what counts.

I said it could be considered hearsay, not that it would be; the full range of possibilities is also very important to consideration.
As to the rest, , your guess is as good as mine.

I'm unhappy here, since I feel a bit torn; and I really wish everyone here would pay far more attention in a real way to ethics ---- I think it's a failure of public atheism that so few are really willing to hammer such a discussion into a manageable shape.
I know that atheism itself says nothing about morality beyond the fact that God-given morality doesn't exist; but by Darwin, it's hard to feel much sympathy for the public cause of atheism when things like this suddenly reveal a huge gaping lack.

brighid

Gurdur,

We agree on something, that is a start!

I think hard and fast judgments should be rare, if ever made and that there is ALOT to consider when making those judgments. Often times there is more then one more, or less acceptable way to handle a situation and as we have found out ... not everyone is going to agree on the best, or right way to handle it!

I will have to get back to this discussion tomorrow. So see everyone at the same bat time, same bat channel.

Have a lovely rest of your day,
Brighid

Proxima Centauri

Brigid has said,

Did Sakpo tell that alleged Philosophy and Ethics professor that Blue_Metal plagiarized because her professor put her under unreasonable pressure. Blue_Metal was late with an assignment due to ill health. Her professor would not allow her extra time to complete it. Blue_Metal decided to plagiarize when she could see no alternative and was possibly still affected by her illness. When we are affected by an infection we are not always thinking at out best.
Any reasonable person with compassion would have taken all that into account. Perhaps some Philosophy and Ethics professors are steeped in ethical ideas from the ancient Greeks onwards rather than in ordinary human compassion. Perhaps Sakpo didn't say everything he/she should have.