1.1 Introduction
University education is the time of studying, learning, doing research. All these activities give possibilities for all students to prepare for their future jobs and carriers. For this reason university teachers take theirjobs seriously and help students in this process of studying.Universities all around the World have Ethical commissions or Disciplinary commissions. Their responsibility is to punish academical crime, for example plagiary in diploma thesis or papers. This case study is based on the real situation.During the final university exam two students with different topics of diploma thesis came to defend their thesis. They obviously had different topics of their thesis, but theoretical part of both diploma thesis was identical. During their presentations and defence of both diploma thesis, the members of the commission asked who the original author of the identical text was. Both students were confronted with the fact, that one of them was plagiarizing the work of the other student.
1.1.1 The problem from ethical point of view
The first problem we can see is the problem of author's rights. However, this kind of problem is morejuridical than ethical. So, we have to ask another question.One of the students spent lot of time for studying, collecting data for analysis. We can see a very scrupulousstudent, who worked hard for the success.The second of the student didn't work. He just opened his friend's files in the computer, downloaded thetext for the chapter of his/her own diploma thesis.
1.2 Case analysis from different Schools of normative ethics perspective
In this chapter one case will be analyzed from the perspective of different normative schools of ethics. The aim is to ask which is the right one for this specific case. I consists of the main definition of each normative ethics school, case analysis from the good and evil point of view, result and justification ofthe result. We would like to explain how and why we think about this kind of justification.
1.2.1 Ancient hedonism perspective
Definition of Ancient Hedonism (see chapter 4.1, page 31): The maximization of pleasure and minimization of suffering are the aims of hedonistic ethics.
The first student from the perspective of ancient hedonism maximized suffering. His feeling of responsibility, Worry about the goal of the Work, all this suffering during the process of Work on the diploma thesis made him/her worry about his success during the presentation of diploma thesis.The second student from the perspective of ancient hedonism minimized suffering. He/her didn't care about the result of work. His/her goal was just to present and successfully defend his diploma thesis.
Result
From the perspective of ancient hedonism the second student was right, because he/she minimized suffering and maximized pleasure.
Justification
Good and evil is judged from the perspective of pleasure and suffering. Pleasure is good is pleasure,suffering is evil.
1.2.1 Utilitarianism perspective
Definition of utilitarianism (see chapter 4.2, page 32): The principle it supports is simple: good is useful. Usefulness is the main principle, and good is what brings benefit to as many people as possible.It is really difficult to say, how big the benefit of diploma thesis is for people if we are not familiar with the topic and content of the specific thesis. However, we would like to assume two premises. First, that scientific Work is goodness for people and the second, we assume that moral aspect of the research is The Greater Good. From these premises we may think that the first student's work brought benefit to as many people as possible because he broadened knowledge by his/her research. He/she also kept themoral and ethical principle of the research and became a role model for others researchers.If we keep to the same premises, We may assume that the second student didn't bring benefit to as many people as possible because at first, he/she did not broaden knowledge by his/her research. He/she did not keep the moral and ethical principle of research. He/she couldn't be a role model for other researchers.
Result
From the perspective of utilitarianism the first student was right, because the first student's work brought benefit to as many people as possible.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective that good is useful. Usefulness is the main principle,and good is what brings benefit to as many people as possible. Good is useful, evil is useless.
1.2.2 Empiristic ethics perspective
Definition of empiristic ethics (see chapter 4.3 on the page 33): The ethical principle here seems to be based on thoughts and actions that are statistically evaluated as the most frequent. The fact that theyare often repeated is statistically regarded as 'good.For analysis of this specific case We should know how many students break the copyrightlaw and download the Work of other researchers. This statistic knowledge is necessary to prove which of both students is ethically right. Since we have no statistic data about the number of students who break the copyrightlaw, we would like to assume one premise: Most students do not break the copyright law.From this premise we may think that the first student's Work followed the statistically most frequent Way of behaviour. If this is true, We may think that he/she just repeated statistically verified most frequent way of behaviour.
From the position of the same premise we may think that the second student did not follow the statistically most frequent way of behaviour.
Result
From the perspective of empiristic ethics the first student was right, because the first student followed statistically frequent way of behaviour.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of statistically frequent way of behaviour. Good is what is statistically frequent way of behaviour, evil is statistically less frequent way of behaviour. However, theproblem of this normative ethics school is that good or evil is verified only by statistic data.
1.2.3 Ethics by norms or principles perspective
Definition of ethics by norms or principles (see chapter 4.4 on the page 36): Ethical maxims shape a human life in the form of norms.One of the ethical maxims can be: don't break the copyright law. If we have an ethical maxim, we can just simply follow this rule.
From the position of this maxim the first student Worked hard on his/her paper and all data for his/herWork were obtained on his/her own.The second student obtained all data for his/her paper from the work of his/her friend. From the perspective of ethics by norms or principles he/she obtained all data illegally. Maxims became norms in Kant's Critique of the Practical Reason (KANT, I. 1996). We should follow these maxims in academic Writing as well. It means that the second student broke the major ethical maxim.
Result
From the perspective of ethics of norms or principles the first student was right, because the first student followed the maxim which became a norm.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective personal maxims of people which became norms. Good is following the norms. Evil is breaking the norms.
1.2.4 Casuistic ethicSperspective
Definition of the casuistic ethics (see chapter 4.5, page 37): This means that maxims and particular commandments are considered for each individual case, in cases where conscience contradicts ethical maxims or particular ethical commandments contradict other rules.
In case when one maxim is confronted with another maxim, they are both in conflict. In this particular case there arent conflicts of maxims or norms.
Result
From the perspective of casuistic ethics there aren't good or evil solutions, because nobody was in the conflict of maxims.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of conflict between maxims. There is not any conflict of maxims.
1.2.5 Situation ethics perspective
Definition of the situation ethics (see chapter 4.6 on the page 38): Each person's unique experience cannot be transferred to any other person or institution, which for the purposes of business ethics means there are no nameless institutions. Some kind of management is always behind the business, in the form of a director or an owner who chooses to act in a certain situation.
The first student Worked and passed the final exam and also defended his/her diplomathesis. His situation predicated the proper end of the university education.The second student didn't work. That was the situation which presupposed him/her to fail his/her university education. We do not have any supplementary information about the particular situation of the second student. But for the needs of the book, let us make up a hypothetical situation. The first student had time comfort because he/she used to pass all exams on time, and he/she was able to be focused on the research. That is the reason why he/she worked with pleasure and collected, analyzed and interpreted the data with calm mind.The second student is in a totally different situation. He/she had the last chance to finish university. This was the reason why he stole data from the friend's computer.From the casuistic ethics perspective We have to evaluate the second student's maxims.1. Break the maxims and finish the university successfully.2. Work alone and know, that it is impossible to finish school successfully on time.
We can see that the first decision seems to be better, because it gives the hope for success.In this specific case, as we see, the disciplinary commission punished this decision.
Result
From the perspective of situation ethics it is not clear which one of both students is right because the situation of each student was different. And who knows, how the result would change, if the first student was in a more difficult situation.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of the specific situation.
1.2.6 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.
What are the highest of all criteria though?
• Inherent law;
• The categorical imperative;
• God.
The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case we can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.7 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8, 42): 'Act in a way that will turn the maxims ofyour will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, the first student followed the categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant because he/she by his/her work completed the act which is acceptable for all people in the world. He didn't want to live in the world in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.The second student, did not follow this categorical imperative because he/she probably wanted to live in the World, in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics the first student was right.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, in which breaking of ethical maxims, norms is something regular.Good is logically justified good.
1.2.8 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9 on page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring.Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result of the first student's deeds is to successfully graduate from university. From the position of the ethics of responsibility he/she should pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her actions correspond with reasonable consequences. The consequence for the first student is to successfully graduate from university and a great opening to the business life.The result of the second student's deeds is the summons to the disciplinary commission. From the position of ethics of responsibility he/she did not pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her activity had unintended consequences.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility the first student was right.
Justification
Good equals with intended consequences. Evil equals with unintended consequences.
The first problem we can see is the problem of author's rights. However, this kind of problem is morejuridical than ethical. So, we have to ask another question.One of the students spent lot of time for studying, collecting data for analysis. We can see a very scrupulousstudent, who worked hard for the success.The second of the student didn't work. He just opened his friend's files in the computer, downloaded thetext for the chapter of his/her own diploma thesis. 1.2 Case analysis from different Schools of normative ethics perspective
In this chapter one case will be analyzed from the perspective of different normative schools of ethics. The aim is to ask which is the right one for this specific case. I consists of the main definition of each normative ethics school, case analysis from the good and evil point of view, result and justification ofthe result. We would like to explain how and why we think about this kind of justification. 1.2.1 Ancient hedonism perspective
Definition of Ancient Hedonism (see chapter 4.1, page 31): The maximization of pleasure and minimization of suffering are the aims of hedonistic ethics.
The first student from the perspective of ancient hedonism maximized suffering. His feeling of responsibility, Worry about the goal of the Work, all this suffering during the process of Work on the diploma thesis made him/her worry about his success during the presentation of diploma thesis.The second student from the perspective of ancient hedonism minimized suffering. He/her didn't care about the result of work. His/her goal was just to present and successfully defend his diploma thesis.
Result
From the perspective of ancient hedonism the second student was right, because he/she minimized suffering and maximized pleasure.
Justification
Good and evil is judged from the perspective of pleasure and suffering. Pleasure is good is pleasure,suffering is evil.
1.2.1 Utilitarianism perspective
Definition of utilitarianism (see chapter 4.2, page 32): The principle it supports is simple: good is useful. Usefulness is the main principle, and good is what brings benefit to as many people as possible.It is really difficult to say, how big the benefit of diploma thesis is for people if we are not familiar with the topic and content of the specific thesis. However, we would like to assume two premises. First, that scientific Work is goodness for people and the second, we assume that moral aspect of the research is The Greater Good. From these premises we may think that the first student's work brought benefit to as many people as possible because he broadened knowledge by his/her research. He/she also kept themoral and ethical principle of the research and became a role model for others researchers.If we keep to the same premises, We may assume that the second student didn't bring benefit to as many people as possible because at first, he/she did not broaden knowledge by his/her research. He/she did not keep the moral and ethical principle of research. He/she couldn't be a role model for other researchers.
Result
From the perspective of utilitarianism the first student was right, because the first student's work brought benefit to as many people as possible.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective that good is useful. Usefulness is the main principle,and good is what brings benefit to as many people as possible. Good is useful, evil is useless.
1.2.2 Empiristic ethics perspective
Definition of empiristic ethics (see chapter 4.3 on the page 33): The ethical principle here seems to be based on thoughts and actions that are statistically evaluated as the most frequent. The fact that theyare often repeated is statistically regarded as 'good.For analysis of this specific case We should know how many students break the copyrightlaw and download the Work of other researchers. This statistic knowledge is necessary to prove which of both students is ethically right. Since we have no statistic data about the number of students who break the copyrightlaw, we would like to assume one premise: Most students do not break the copyright law.From this premise we may think that the first student's Work followed the statistically most frequent Way of behaviour. If this is true, We may think that he/she just repeated statistically verified most frequent way of behaviour.
From the position of the same premise we may think that the second student did not follow the statistically most frequent way of behaviour.
Result
From the perspective of empiristic ethics the first student was right, because the first student followed statistically frequent way of behaviour.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of statistically frequent way of behaviour. Good is what is statistically frequent way of behaviour, evil is statistically less frequent way of behaviour. However, theproblem of this normative ethics school is that good or evil is verified only by statistic data.
1.2.3 Ethics by norms or principles perspective
Definition of ethics by norms or principles (see chapter 4.4 on the page 36): Ethical maxims shape a human life in the form of norms.One of the ethical maxims can be: don't break the copyright law. If we have an ethical maxim, we can just simply follow this rule.
From the position of this maxim the first student Worked hard on his/her paper and all data for his/herWork were obtained on his/her own.The second student obtained all data for his/her paper from the work of his/her friend. From the perspective of ethics by norms or principles he/she obtained all data illegally. Maxims became norms in Kant's Critique of the Practical Reason (KANT, I. 1996). We should follow these maxims in academic Writing as well. It means that the second student broke the major ethical maxim.
Result
From the perspective of ethics of norms or principles the first student was right, because the first student followed the maxim which became a norm.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective personal maxims of people which became norms. Good is following the norms. Evil is breaking the norms.
1.2.4 Casuistic ethicSperspective
Definition of the casuistic ethics (see chapter 4.5, page 37): This means that maxims and particular commandments are considered for each individual case, in cases where conscience contradicts ethical maxims or particular ethical commandments contradict other rules.
In case when one maxim is confronted with another maxim, they are both in conflict. In this particular case there arent conflicts of maxims or norms.
Result
From the perspective of casuistic ethics there aren't good or evil solutions, because nobody was in the conflict of maxims.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of conflict between maxims. There is not any conflict of maxims.
1.2.5 Situation ethics perspective
Definition of the situation ethics (see chapter 4.6 on the page 38): Each person's unique experience cannot be transferred to any other person or institution, which for the purposes of business ethics means there are no nameless institutions. Some kind of management is always behind the business, in the form of a director or an owner who chooses to act in a certain situation.
The first student Worked and passed the final exam and also defended his/her diplomathesis. His situation predicated the proper end of the university education.The second student didn't work. That was the situation which presupposed him/her to fail his/her university education. We do not have any supplementary information about the particular situation of the second student. But for the needs of the book, let us make up a hypothetical situation. The first student had time comfort because he/she used to pass all exams on time, and he/she was able to be focused on the research. That is the reason why he/she worked with pleasure and collected, analyzed and interpreted the data with calm mind.The second student is in a totally different situation. He/she had the last chance to finish university. This was the reason why he stole data from the friend's computer.From the casuistic ethics perspective We have to evaluate the second student's maxims.1. Break the maxims and finish the university successfully.2. Work alone and know, that it is impossible to finish school successfully on time.
We can see that the first decision seems to be better, because it gives the hope for success.In this specific case, as we see, the disciplinary commission punished this decision.
Result
From the perspective of situation ethics it is not clear which one of both students is right because the situation of each student was different. And who knows, how the result would change, if the first student was in a more difficult situation.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of the specific situation.
1.2.6 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.
What are the highest of all criteria though?
• Inherent law;
• The categorical imperative;
• God.
The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case we can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.7 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8, 42): 'Act in a way that will turn the maxims ofyour will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, the first student followed the categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant because he/she by his/her work completed the act which is acceptable for all people in the world. He didn't want to live in the world in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.The second student, did not follow this categorical imperative because he/she probably wanted to live in the World, in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics the first student was right.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, in which breaking of ethical maxims, norms is something regular.Good is logically justified good.
1.2.8 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9 on page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring.Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result of the first student's deeds is to successfully graduate from university. From the position of the ethics of responsibility he/she should pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her actions correspond with reasonable consequences. The consequence for the first student is to successfully graduate from university and a great opening to the business life.The result of the second student's deeds is the summons to the disciplinary commission. From the position of ethics of responsibility he/she did not pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her activity had unintended consequences.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility the first student was right.
Justification
Good equals with intended consequences. Evil equals with unintended consequences.
Definition of utilitarianism (see chapter 4.2, page 32): The principle it supports is simple: good is useful. Usefulness is the main principle, and good is what brings benefit to as many people as possible.It is really difficult to say, how big the benefit of diploma thesis is for people if we are not familiar with the topic and content of the specific thesis. However, we would like to assume two premises. First, that scientific Work is goodness for people and the second, we assume that moral aspect of the research is The Greater Good. From these premises we may think that the first student's work brought benefit to as many people as possible because he broadened knowledge by his/her research. He/she also kept themoral and ethical principle of the research and became a role model for others researchers.If we keep to the same premises, We may assume that the second student didn't bring benefit to as many people as possible because at first, he/she did not broaden knowledge by his/her research. He/she did not keep the moral and ethical principle of research. He/she couldn't be a role model for other researchers. Result
From the perspective of utilitarianism the first student was right, because the first student's work brought benefit to as many people as possible.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective that good is useful. Usefulness is the main principle,and good is what brings benefit to as many people as possible. Good is useful, evil is useless.
1.2.2 Empiristic ethics perspective
Definition of empiristic ethics (see chapter 4.3 on the page 33): The ethical principle here seems to be based on thoughts and actions that are statistically evaluated as the most frequent. The fact that theyare often repeated is statistically regarded as 'good.For analysis of this specific case We should know how many students break the copyrightlaw and download the Work of other researchers. This statistic knowledge is necessary to prove which of both students is ethically right. Since we have no statistic data about the number of students who break the copyrightlaw, we would like to assume one premise: Most students do not break the copyright law.From this premise we may think that the first student's Work followed the statistically most frequent Way of behaviour. If this is true, We may think that he/she just repeated statistically verified most frequent way of behaviour.
From the position of the same premise we may think that the second student did not follow the statistically most frequent way of behaviour.
Result
From the perspective of empiristic ethics the first student was right, because the first student followed statistically frequent way of behaviour.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of statistically frequent way of behaviour. Good is what is statistically frequent way of behaviour, evil is statistically less frequent way of behaviour. However, theproblem of this normative ethics school is that good or evil is verified only by statistic data.
1.2.3 Ethics by norms or principles perspective
Definition of ethics by norms or principles (see chapter 4.4 on the page 36): Ethical maxims shape a human life in the form of norms.One of the ethical maxims can be: don't break the copyright law. If we have an ethical maxim, we can just simply follow this rule.
From the position of this maxim the first student Worked hard on his/her paper and all data for his/herWork were obtained on his/her own.The second student obtained all data for his/her paper from the work of his/her friend. From the perspective of ethics by norms or principles he/she obtained all data illegally. Maxims became norms in Kant's Critique of the Practical Reason (KANT, I. 1996). We should follow these maxims in academic Writing as well. It means that the second student broke the major ethical maxim.
Result
From the perspective of ethics of norms or principles the first student was right, because the first student followed the maxim which became a norm.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective personal maxims of people which became norms. Good is following the norms. Evil is breaking the norms.
1.2.4 Casuistic ethicSperspective
Definition of the casuistic ethics (see chapter 4.5, page 37): This means that maxims and particular commandments are considered for each individual case, in cases where conscience contradicts ethical maxims or particular ethical commandments contradict other rules.
In case when one maxim is confronted with another maxim, they are both in conflict. In this particular case there arent conflicts of maxims or norms.
Result
From the perspective of casuistic ethics there aren't good or evil solutions, because nobody was in the conflict of maxims.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of conflict between maxims. There is not any conflict of maxims.
1.2.5 Situation ethics perspective
Definition of the situation ethics (see chapter 4.6 on the page 38): Each person's unique experience cannot be transferred to any other person or institution, which for the purposes of business ethics means there are no nameless institutions. Some kind of management is always behind the business, in the form of a director or an owner who chooses to act in a certain situation.
The first student Worked and passed the final exam and also defended his/her diplomathesis. His situation predicated the proper end of the university education.The second student didn't work. That was the situation which presupposed him/her to fail his/her university education. We do not have any supplementary information about the particular situation of the second student. But for the needs of the book, let us make up a hypothetical situation. The first student had time comfort because he/she used to pass all exams on time, and he/she was able to be focused on the research. That is the reason why he/she worked with pleasure and collected, analyzed and interpreted the data with calm mind.The second student is in a totally different situation. He/she had the last chance to finish university. This was the reason why he stole data from the friend's computer.From the casuistic ethics perspective We have to evaluate the second student's maxims.1. Break the maxims and finish the university successfully.2. Work alone and know, that it is impossible to finish school successfully on time.
We can see that the first decision seems to be better, because it gives the hope for success.In this specific case, as we see, the disciplinary commission punished this decision.
Result
From the perspective of situation ethics it is not clear which one of both students is right because the situation of each student was different. And who knows, how the result would change, if the first student was in a more difficult situation.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of the specific situation.
1.2.6 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.
What are the highest of all criteria though?
• Inherent law;
• The categorical imperative;
• God.
The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case we can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.7 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8, 42): 'Act in a way that will turn the maxims ofyour will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, the first student followed the categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant because he/she by his/her work completed the act which is acceptable for all people in the world. He didn't want to live in the world in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.The second student, did not follow this categorical imperative because he/she probably wanted to live in the World, in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics the first student was right.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, in which breaking of ethical maxims, norms is something regular.Good is logically justified good.
1.2.8 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9 on page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring.Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result of the first student's deeds is to successfully graduate from university. From the position of the ethics of responsibility he/she should pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her actions correspond with reasonable consequences. The consequence for the first student is to successfully graduate from university and a great opening to the business life.The result of the second student's deeds is the summons to the disciplinary commission. From the position of ethics of responsibility he/she did not pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her activity had unintended consequences.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility the first student was right.
Justification
Good equals with intended consequences. Evil equals with unintended consequences.
Definition of empiristic ethics (see chapter 4.3 on the page 33): The ethical principle here seems to be based on thoughts and actions that are statistically evaluated as the most frequent. The fact that theyare often repeated is statistically regarded as 'good.For analysis of this specific case We should know how many students break the copyrightlaw and download the Work of other researchers. This statistic knowledge is necessary to prove which of both students is ethically right. Since we have no statistic data about the number of students who break the copyrightlaw, we would like to assume one premise: Most students do not break the copyright law.From this premise we may think that the first student's Work followed the statistically most frequent Way of behaviour. If this is true, We may think that he/she just repeated statistically verified most frequent way of behaviour.
From the position of the same premise we may think that the second student did not follow the statistically most frequent way of behaviour.
Result
From the perspective of empiristic ethics the first student was right, because the first student followed statistically frequent way of behaviour.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of statistically frequent way of behaviour. Good is what is statistically frequent way of behaviour, evil is statistically less frequent way of behaviour. However, theproblem of this normative ethics school is that good or evil is verified only by statistic data.
1.2.3 Ethics by norms or principles perspective
Definition of ethics by norms or principles (see chapter 4.4 on the page 36): Ethical maxims shape a human life in the form of norms.One of the ethical maxims can be: don't break the copyright law. If we have an ethical maxim, we can just simply follow this rule.
From the position of this maxim the first student Worked hard on his/her paper and all data for his/herWork were obtained on his/her own.The second student obtained all data for his/her paper from the work of his/her friend. From the perspective of ethics by norms or principles he/she obtained all data illegally. Maxims became norms in Kant's Critique of the Practical Reason (KANT, I. 1996). We should follow these maxims in academic Writing as well. It means that the second student broke the major ethical maxim.
Result
From the perspective of ethics of norms or principles the first student was right, because the first student followed the maxim which became a norm.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective personal maxims of people which became norms. Good is following the norms. Evil is breaking the norms.
1.2.4 Casuistic ethicSperspective
Definition of the casuistic ethics (see chapter 4.5, page 37): This means that maxims and particular commandments are considered for each individual case, in cases where conscience contradicts ethical maxims or particular ethical commandments contradict other rules.
In case when one maxim is confronted with another maxim, they are both in conflict. In this particular case there arent conflicts of maxims or norms.
Result
From the perspective of casuistic ethics there aren't good or evil solutions, because nobody was in the conflict of maxims.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of conflict between maxims. There is not any conflict of maxims.
1.2.5 Situation ethics perspective
Definition of the situation ethics (see chapter 4.6 on the page 38): Each person's unique experience cannot be transferred to any other person or institution, which for the purposes of business ethics means there are no nameless institutions. Some kind of management is always behind the business, in the form of a director or an owner who chooses to act in a certain situation.
The first student Worked and passed the final exam and also defended his/her diplomathesis. His situation predicated the proper end of the university education.The second student didn't work. That was the situation which presupposed him/her to fail his/her university education. We do not have any supplementary information about the particular situation of the second student. But for the needs of the book, let us make up a hypothetical situation. The first student had time comfort because he/she used to pass all exams on time, and he/she was able to be focused on the research. That is the reason why he/she worked with pleasure and collected, analyzed and interpreted the data with calm mind.The second student is in a totally different situation. He/she had the last chance to finish university. This was the reason why he stole data from the friend's computer.From the casuistic ethics perspective We have to evaluate the second student's maxims.1. Break the maxims and finish the university successfully.2. Work alone and know, that it is impossible to finish school successfully on time.
We can see that the first decision seems to be better, because it gives the hope for success.In this specific case, as we see, the disciplinary commission punished this decision.
Result
From the perspective of situation ethics it is not clear which one of both students is right because the situation of each student was different. And who knows, how the result would change, if the first student was in a more difficult situation.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of the specific situation.
1.2.6 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.
What are the highest of all criteria though?
• Inherent law;
• The categorical imperative;
• God.
The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case we can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.7 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8, 42): 'Act in a way that will turn the maxims ofyour will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, the first student followed the categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant because he/she by his/her work completed the act which is acceptable for all people in the world. He didn't want to live in the world in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.The second student, did not follow this categorical imperative because he/she probably wanted to live in the World, in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics the first student was right.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, in which breaking of ethical maxims, norms is something regular.Good is logically justified good.
1.2.8 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9 on page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring.Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result of the first student's deeds is to successfully graduate from university. From the position of the ethics of responsibility he/she should pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her actions correspond with reasonable consequences. The consequence for the first student is to successfully graduate from university and a great opening to the business life.The result of the second student's deeds is the summons to the disciplinary commission. From the position of ethics of responsibility he/she did not pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her activity had unintended consequences.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility the first student was right.
Justification
Good equals with intended consequences. Evil equals with unintended consequences.
From the perspective of ethics of norms or principles the first student was right, because the first student followed the maxim which became a norm. Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective personal maxims of people which became norms. Good is following the norms. Evil is breaking the norms. 1.2.4 Casuistic ethicSperspective
Definition of the casuistic ethics (see chapter 4.5, page 37): This means that maxims and particular commandments are considered for each individual case, in cases where conscience contradicts ethical maxims or particular ethical commandments contradict other rules.
In case when one maxim is confronted with another maxim, they are both in conflict. In this particular case there arent conflicts of maxims or norms.
Result
From the perspective of casuistic ethics there aren't good or evil solutions, because nobody was in the conflict of maxims.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of conflict between maxims. There is not any conflict of maxims.
1.2.5 Situation ethics perspective
Definition of the situation ethics (see chapter 4.6 on the page 38): Each person's unique experience cannot be transferred to any other person or institution, which for the purposes of business ethics means there are no nameless institutions. Some kind of management is always behind the business, in the form of a director or an owner who chooses to act in a certain situation.
The first student Worked and passed the final exam and also defended his/her diplomathesis. His situation predicated the proper end of the university education.The second student didn't work. That was the situation which presupposed him/her to fail his/her university education. We do not have any supplementary information about the particular situation of the second student. But for the needs of the book, let us make up a hypothetical situation. The first student had time comfort because he/she used to pass all exams on time, and he/she was able to be focused on the research. That is the reason why he/she worked with pleasure and collected, analyzed and interpreted the data with calm mind.The second student is in a totally different situation. He/she had the last chance to finish university. This was the reason why he stole data from the friend's computer.From the casuistic ethics perspective We have to evaluate the second student's maxims.1. Break the maxims and finish the university successfully.2. Work alone and know, that it is impossible to finish school successfully on time.
We can see that the first decision seems to be better, because it gives the hope for success.In this specific case, as we see, the disciplinary commission punished this decision.
Result
From the perspective of situation ethics it is not clear which one of both students is right because the situation of each student was different. And who knows, how the result would change, if the first student was in a more difficult situation.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of the specific situation.
1.2.6 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.
What are the highest of all criteria though?
• Inherent law;
• The categorical imperative;
• God.
The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case we can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.7 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8, 42): 'Act in a way that will turn the maxims ofyour will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, the first student followed the categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant because he/she by his/her work completed the act which is acceptable for all people in the world. He didn't want to live in the world in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.The second student, did not follow this categorical imperative because he/she probably wanted to live in the World, in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics the first student was right.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, in which breaking of ethical maxims, norms is something regular.Good is logically justified good.
1.2.8 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9 on page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring.Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result of the first student's deeds is to successfully graduate from university. From the position of the ethics of responsibility he/she should pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her actions correspond with reasonable consequences. The consequence for the first student is to successfully graduate from university and a great opening to the business life.The result of the second student's deeds is the summons to the disciplinary commission. From the position of ethics of responsibility he/she did not pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her activity had unintended consequences.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility the first student was right.
Justification
Good equals with intended consequences. Evil equals with unintended consequences.
We can see that the first decision seems to be better, because it gives the hope for success.In this specific case, as we see, the disciplinary commission punished this decision.
Result
From the perspective of situation ethics it is not clear which one of both students is right because the situation of each student was different. And who knows, how the result would change, if the first student was in a more difficult situation.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of the specific situation.
1.2.6 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.
What are the highest of all criteria though?
• Inherent law;
• The categorical imperative;
• God.
The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case we can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.7 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8, 42): 'Act in a way that will turn the maxims ofyour will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, the first student followed the categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant because he/she by his/her work completed the act which is acceptable for all people in the world. He didn't want to live in the world in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.The second student, did not follow this categorical imperative because he/she probably wanted to live in the World, in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics the first student was right.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, in which breaking of ethical maxims, norms is something regular.Good is logically justified good.
1.2.8 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9 on page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring.Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result of the first student's deeds is to successfully graduate from university. From the position of the ethics of responsibility he/she should pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her actions correspond with reasonable consequences. The consequence for the first student is to successfully graduate from university and a great opening to the business life.The result of the second student's deeds is the summons to the disciplinary commission. From the position of ethics of responsibility he/she did not pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her activity had unintended consequences.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility the first student was right.
Justification
Good equals with intended consequences. Evil equals with unintended consequences.
• The categorical imperative;
• God.
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8, 42): 'Act in a way that will turn the maxims ofyour will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, the first student followed the categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant because he/she by his/her work completed the act which is acceptable for all people in the world. He didn't want to live in the world in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.The second student, did not follow this categorical imperative because he/she probably wanted to live in the World, in which breaking the copyright law or breaking the other laws is acceptable.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics the first student was right.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, in which breaking of ethical maxims, norms is something regular.Good is logically justified good.
1.2.8 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9 on page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring.Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result of the first student's deeds is to successfully graduate from university. From the position of the ethics of responsibility he/she should pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her actions correspond with reasonable consequences. The consequence for the first student is to successfully graduate from university and a great opening to the business life.The result of the second student's deeds is the summons to the disciplinary commission. From the position of ethics of responsibility he/she did not pass the major criterion of responsibility. His/her activity had unintended consequences.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility the first student was right.
Justification
Good equals with intended consequences. Evil equals with unintended consequences.
From the position of ethics responsibility the first student was right. Justification Good equals with intended consequences. Evil equals with unintended consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment