Pojman On Cheating
If everybody cheats on an exam, why can’t I? This is the question many students may ask themselves on a weekly basis when cheating can be so easy and advantageous. Especially sense, as according to the polls taken in Pojman’s philosophy classes, about two thirds of students affirmed moral relativism, meaning that if everyone in the school believed it was morally right to cheat - then it was right to cheat (Pojman, 242). Let’s assume a situation where your friend tells you she’s planning on cheating on her exam, and justifies her plan on the grounds that cheating is the norm at her school. In this situation, the student may fully believe she is acting morally while cheating on her exam, and some philosophers may agree with her. Using Pojman’s
…show more content…
The ethical relativist would say that because the school believes it is immoral, than it is immoral. While cheating might be the norm, it likely isn’t their principles. Each student probably knew what they were doing was immoral, but they commonly decide to act against their principles. This is very possibly because the benefits of cheating outway that of the consequences of their action, making it fully justified to them. However, just because it is justified does not make it …show more content…
That is, that what is moral would be whatever she believes is moral(Pojman, 246). However, this doesn’t provide us anymore insight beyond whether or not she went against her own principles either. It’s impossible to determine whether one acts morally or immorally without assuming their principles, but that is dependent on everything around them and how they were raised. With this point of view, morality simply becomes a belief.
The relativist stand points do not allow us to judge, one cannot say that a culture was wrong in what they believed (Pojman, 253). This, however, is not helpful in benefitting us as a society. This is to say that morality in itself is a useless construct, which it does not have to be. However, Pojman offers us one more analytical method that suggests there are underlying moral principles that are universal for all human beings (Pojman,
The ethical relativist would say that because the school believes it is immoral, than it is immoral. While cheating might be the norm, it likely isn’t their principles. Each student probably knew what they were doing was immoral, but they commonly decide to act against their principles. This is very possibly because the benefits of cheating outway that of the consequences of their action, making it fully justified to them. However, just because it is justified does not make it …show more content…
That is, that what is moral would be whatever she believes is moral(Pojman, 246). However, this doesn’t provide us anymore insight beyond whether or not she went against her own principles either. It’s impossible to determine whether one acts morally or immorally without assuming their principles, but that is dependent on everything around them and how they were raised. With this point of view, morality simply becomes a belief.
The relativist stand points do not allow us to judge, one cannot say that a culture was wrong in what they believed (Pojman, 253). This, however, is not helpful in benefitting us as a society. This is to say that morality in itself is a useless construct, which it does not have to be. However, Pojman offers us one more analytical method that suggests there are underlying moral principles that are universal for all human beings (Pojman,