Writer@Large

Of course I didn't say that, and of course you know it, and thank you for straw-manning my position.

Granted. Has Sakpo ever claimed he acted without any sort of moral or ethical regard? Just because his decision wasn't to your liking doesn't make the decision any less valid. "Thinking deeply" about every single moral or ethical decision before you do it can be a great thing. But it can also stagnate any action from being taken. If one believes strongly enough in ones action, than being dismissive of ethical consequences is a perfectly legitimate decision, so long as one is willing to live wit them.

Again, granted. It was obvious, though, through her threads here at II, that she wasn't getting it. Judging by her newest thread, she still doesn't.

Thus, your preferable action would have been to confront Blue_Metal privately. And you're welcome to do so.


But it was quickly becoming about that, and so I felt I needed to make some sort of statement.

--W@L

Ronin

Outstanding consideration, sakpo. Now, you have my ear.

I anxiously await your, unencumbered, position as viewed through the perspective of those that have offered their recent views on this important matter.

livius drusus, Gurdur and others that have taken the less adversarial route I only offer you my best regards.

You possess qualities I only hope, one day, to acquire.

Rusting Car Bumper

This is an excellent point which was essentialy said before. It bears repeating that there are no consequence free actions.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

If I am its because it wasn't clearly spelled out. Its of no relevance that (1) you are a teacher and (2) that plagarism is a huge problem.

Your exact words were:
You juxtapose the "bad" of Blue_Metal's actions against the supposed "good" or supposed "bad" of Sakpo's actions. Nobody is disputing that Blue_Metal's actions were piss poor. Thus, pointing out that they were bad does not actually justify, IN AND OF ITSELF, giving the threads to the Dean. The questions are "What does one do about it, what are the most desired outcomes, and how does one help to acheive them?"

Now you don't outright say it, but there seems to be a hint that because Blue_Metal's actions were bad that itself justifys action in response to it. That is the main ethical quandry of the thread as I see it.

Because a person does Y and Y is bad does not make another person's action X in response to it, is justified.

The action X is not consequence free and nor is it free of moral judgement.

A few people have thrown out the old "thats your morality" type argument. I don't think people are seeing that through to its conclusion. If a moral argument can be thwarted by simply claiming a personal morality then Blue_metal herself can simply say what she did wasn't wrong.

Stop being personal. I've said I don't know how many times that this is about general principles. Don;

Agreed. However, its not very difficult to ask "What is the best outcome and how do I help it be acheived?"

No its not. That, I would claim, is one definition of immorality. That is, going ahead with actions without regard to ethical consequences is, by definition, not moral.

If I believe in locking Jews up and gassing them "strongly enough" [your words] so much so that I am "dismissive of ethical consequences" then is this, in your words, perfectly legitimate? Obviously not.

Of course I picked a loaded example but one pick quite a number of real world examples and show that your statement above it not really believed.

DC

Blue_Metal

My main problem was that Sakpo didn't think that it was my business and that he didn't need to inform me of his actions.

And along the lines of "You outed me to the Dean", luckily enough for me, the Dean asked my mother to leave when she confronted me about my posts on this board.

I got this close to being outed to my family.

I know that there are some people here that think I should be takin outside and shot, but do you also think I should have been outed to my family? You don't know how religious they are. They could have done something like taking me to the priest for an exorcism or they could have cast me from the family and cut off all contact with me.

Think on that.

Blue

livius drusus

I brought up the potentially damaging unforseen consequences of Sakpo's act in order to explore some ethical territory within his own moral boundaries that he had perhaps not considered. I appreciate you providing some further detail on those consequences, but this is a discussion of situational ethics, not the fourth movement of the Blue_Metal Pathetique.

beyelzu

again, i bow to your post livius drusus, you rule:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy


i wish i had something more constructive to add, but any point i would want to make is already being made by others.

brighid

It has been mentioned that one must consider the outcome of any action before taking it, in an attempt to avoid foreseeable consequences. All have agreed that BM’s actions were wrong. Plagiarism is wrong, even if some rate it on the lower end of the spectrum of evils.

As members of this community, and the global community at large do we have a responsibility to it’s other members when we possess knowledge of a present or past wrong/evil/crime? I would say in most cases we do have a responsibility, but what does that responsibility entail? I think that often depends on the situation and the brevity consequences of not reporting the action vs. reporting the action, etc.

I do not think it is fair to compare Sakpo’s action with something as extreme as sending public or private information about a non-theists or homosexuals activities to governmental or religious authorities that will hand down a sentence of loss of life and or liberty. Clearly, plagerism does not carry the penalties of loss of life or liberty. Non-conformity to religious and or sexual norms is also highly debatable with in the spectrum of morality and even if it were “immoral” or “illegal” the punishment should fit the crime. I do not think any of us can agree that a person who does not believe in a God, or who prefers the love and affection of a same sex partner deserves any severe punishment by a human authority.

However, we do agree that plagiarism is wrong and that it does harm other members of the community we share: academically as well as collectively. Plagiarists are lazy, they are thieves and they are also liars. All of these things harms the community within which the plagiarizer lives and the community that must suffer from plagiarisms ill effects.

Many people have expressed their own stories regarding false accusations of plagiarism, mainly in part because it has become so common within our Universities. How could this near ubiquitous problem been averted and what actions or inactions allow it to persist? Silence is a key factor in maintaining the victory the plagiarist has over his/her crimes/wrongs. What members of this academic community didn’t turn a blind eye, or call these people on their actions? What if more people stepped forward and provided the necessary evidence regarding this undisputed crime? Would it be as pervasive? Would professors need special software to determine who was and was not stealing the works of other writers?

Sakpo stated that he thought about his actions long and hard. Sakpo even went so far as to approach a Philosophy and Ethics professor with this dilemma in search of the best course of action. I would be interested to know what that discussion encompassed, what the professor recommended and why?

Do we have a moral obligation to provide relevant parties with information, knowing made public (but out of the immediate sight of the interested parties) in order to either right that wrong, or to insure the appropriate punishment or solution is found in order to prevent such a thing from happening again?

I do agree that certain and personal information, not relevant to the issue of plagiarism should have been omitted but I do not feel it was morally wrong to provide the Dean with information BM posted on this forum.

There is no expectation of privacy in the public forums, and any expectation placed on that privacy is falsely held. The private forums are another matter. If I were to walk into ANY public place and I willingly discussed an action that I knew was wrong and/or criminal can I reasonably have the expectation that this information may not be supplied to the authorities? Should I have the expectation?

The question then becomes should those privy to said information supply the authorities with it? Again, that depends on the crime and the possible consequences. In this case the foreseeable consequences without this specific information being presented to the Dean was failure of the paper and course, suspension and our expulsion. BM knew all of these things prior to embarking down this path and therefore BM (although in denial) freely chose to accept the consequences by choosing these actions. Was her situation actually made worse by Sakpos declarations? I do not think there is enough evidence to fully determine that yet.

How many crimes can be prevented, and how many wrongs mitigated, or at least some justice served through greater community responsibility in these things?

I think within the realm of this specific situation that Sakpo was largely correct, although I do contest some of the choices made.

I think this discussion can be taken farther into other realms of moral issues, such as the secrecy within the Church and pedophilia, domestic violence, etc. I do not believe that every scenario that we can come up with warrants action from those who know something ill is going on, or that someday did something wrong that should not go unpunished. But I think we should, for the sake of THIS discussion keep the scope rather narrow and take any other issues to a separate thread.

Brighid


To Blue_Metal -

If you did not want your parents or your school to know about your atheism, you may have considered remaining anonymous here at ii and perhaps you should have thought about the very foreseeable consequences of your actions here. No one, other then yourself is responsible for any potential outings ... if you want to be a lawyer you will need to familiarize yourself with the phrase "but if not for" .... But if not for your own negligence and wrong doing we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Also familiarize yourself with the concept of personal responsibility, including the fact that no other persons actions absolve you of your own.

ImGod

Not necessarily so. Plagiarists copy other people’s work and pass it off as their own. Plagiarists may plagiarize for various reasons, some because they are lazy, some to intentionally deceive or lie, some to secure financial gain, some all of the above, some accidentally, and some just because of a momentary lapse in judgment. A review of the overall person would give us an indication of how much of lazy, thieving, or lying applies and would assist us in determining an acceptable severity of punishment.

I’ve been giving this issue considerable thought, and I’m coming to the conclusion that the actions taken were more because of a general fear that the individual was going to get away with the plagiarism. The perceived lack of remorse and solicitation of advice on how to handle the situation left us feeling as if this person would do anything possible to get out of it. We add our assessment of the person’s character in determining if it was acceptable to provide additional evidence to the Dean.

Would we feel the same, or acted in the same manner, if a freshman had come to us and started a remorseful thread that included the same personal information, stated how she made the biggest mistake of her life, and asked how to handle the situation? Would we have interfered in the personal life of an individual who took this approach to the situation? If we wouldn’t interfere in that situation then we have shifted the focus to the character of the individual.

Gurdur

Let justice be done though the heavens may fall

The argument between DigitalChicken and Writer@Large bothers me, so as A Bear Of Very Little Brain, I'ld like to see a bit more pedantic precision and exegesis.

Ramrod rectitude in not, in itself, wrong.
One legal application of this is the old principle "Let justice be done though the heavens may fall" (I used to know this and others in the original Latin, but hey, I've forgotten them all).
It all depends on just what principle is being applied and the rest of the situation is as to whether ramrod rectitude is inappropriate or not; or, IOW, to make it more convoluted:

It depends on the situation as to whether the situation should sometimes be completely ignored or not.
It depends on the principle as to whether that principle should be applied rigorously or not.

Then there is also the question of what is morally owed to the subject of one's actions

Let's illustrate it all via application here (with my own answers, but hey, ):

Did Sakpo owe Blue Metal a warning before his action ?
No,
for the simple reasons of Blue Metal's own rather considerable self-pity, self-justication and smugness in what is a very real case of non-pecadillo plagiarism,
and for the fact that had Blue Metal actually being chucked out of college, it would have been for something that Blue Metal knew in advance to be wrong,
and moreover it would have not stuffed up Blue Metal's life forever
(as a side-note, and as an academic myself, I do not agree with the suggestion she should have been blackballed from every other college --- most people deserve the chance for redemption)

Did Sakpo owe people here an explanationfor his action ?
well, now, that all depends on how you see here.
If and only if you see here as being some genuine kind of community, then Sakpo did owe some kind of explanation, for three different reasons:

1) This is obviously a bone of contention within that community, and a source of distress on many counts for some

2) It had an effect on the public image of that community.

But regardless of whether you see here as a community or not -->

3) If a bloody principle is worth enforcing rigorously, well for crissakes it's worth explaining the principle to others then, if only for the sake of the principle.

Was Sakpo's action wrong ?
That depends on a whole horde of factors, but as has been said by Diana, Bree and Writer@Large, it is impossible to claim it was automatically and absolutely wrong.

Was Sakpo's action right ?
Some have suggested it was absolutely right; I disagree completely --- for an interesting case of just why ramrod rectitude can be very wrong at times, see this thread here, where Hugo Holbling asked regarding a real-life situation as to whether he should inform (and it was part of his job), when the results of his actions would have meant an instant dishonourable discharge from the armed forces with consequent great problems for civilian life for the offenders.

Was Sakpo's action justified ?
It is impossible to say it was unjustified, given the nature of Blue Metal's offence; but as to whether it was fully justified depends on a whole horde of factors, some of which were unforeseeable and are only now being drawn out.

The problem with ramrod rectitude is sometimes it can be used as an excuse for moral and personal cowardice; sometimes it simply degenerates down to an unctuous sef-righteousness, or power-play, along the lines of South Park's Cartman,
"Respect my authority !"


In conclusion:
Things are seldom what they seem:
Skim milk masquerades as cream

While ramrod rectitude is better than going with the flow, or empty protestations of 'principles' advocating limitationm within one's own 'personal sphere', and far, far better than "Anything goes", it itself often requires justification and exculpation if it isn't to simply become an empty exercise in morally dilettantish rigidity.