Decisions

 Hii!

How is everyone? I hope you stay safe and take care of yourselves. I wrote this essay about decisions and different approaches to the question: "If A is copying their homework for school from B, is it always wrong? When is it right?". I didn't really give it that much thought at first, but I soon became caught up on this discussion. What do you think?

Don't forget to share the blog and comment with your opinion. Enjoy:

   You are trapped in a room. It’s dark, cold and you can hardly breathe. The last thing you remember is talking to your classmate about your homework. How did you end up in this place? Suddenly your whole body starts trembling. Someone tosses a notebook on the table right in front of you and you hear a breathy voice ordering to open it. “Now, copy the last homework, or something really bad will happen.” End scene…

    Lying is wrong. Cheating is wrong. Copying is wrong. Or is it? Imagine the worst-case scenario where you’re kidnapped and the horror scene I just described becomes real. What do you do in that particular case? While copying is technically wrong, everyone should cringe at this conception of morality because it fails to account for context. In this example, cheating is not only justified, it is necessary because it aids a helpless victim who has been involuntarily subjected to unreasonable conditions. Still, one might argue that copying is morally incorrect even in this case. It may seem like that person is unreasonable and doesn’t even have a heart. If you certainly know that you’re not a superhuman like Deadpool who literally can’t die, why wouldn’t you copy that homework? Well… because it goes against the principle of never copying, or stealing, to be more precise. Kant called this kind of principle “a categorical imperative”; an absolute duty. Under no circumstances should a person disobey this rule and it applies to everyone no matter the consequences. If you do choose to copy the homework you approve of cheating and you’re actually universalizing that action. You basically say that everyone should always copy.

   I, for one, do not agree with the Kantian philosophy. I find it absolutist, unreal, and impossible to follow. I’m much more fond of the utilitarian point of view. It states that you can determine the level of morality of an action based on the consequences and you should choose the option that provides happiness and pleasure. But that doesn’t mean it allows you to always copy. Let’s take a basic example: Whizzer doesn’t care at all about one particular subject in school.  Kathy is a great student who is prepared, loves this subject, never copies and, most importantly, she always does her homework. At first, you would think that an utilitarian will totally agree with Whizzer copying Kathy’s homework. After all… this action will certainly bring Whizzer happiness. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. Unlike egoistic theories, where you should do anything in order to make yourself happy, utilitarianism is other-regarding. We should pursue pleasure not only for ourselves but for as many other living creatures as possible.

   Picture a rather odd environment where Kathy, who, as we agreed, is totally against copying one’s homework, is in an unlocked room only with two notebooks and a pen. Through a quite small and dusty window, she can see another room with 20 people. If she doesn’t copy a particular homework from one of those notebooks, the other 20 people get shot. She is free to leave the room and she doesn’t get hurt either way. As we discussed, there are three completely different ways to approach this situation. Kant would tell Kathy that she must not copy under any circumstances. A supporter of the egoistic theories would tell her to walk away because she doesn’t need to compromise her principles since she’s not harmed anyway. Following the utilitarian philosophy, she should go against her ideals in order to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. That means taking one for the team. In this case, it seems like a harmless, obvious decision. But every single one of these examples applies to any principle you may have.

   Is it sometimes right to do the wrong thing? What if instead of copying one’s homework, it was about killing another person in order to save one hundred? The more serious your action seems, the less confident you are about your decision.  Unless there are clear, irreversibly harmful repercussions to obeying your principles, I find the act of following the morally correct rules essential. You can’t always do what provides you satisfaction, nor can you always stick to your principles like there’s nothing in the world that would make you change your mind. Knowing where to cross the fine line depends only on the person and their values. Although Spiderman is completely against copying one’s homework, wouldn’t he do it in order to save Queens?