Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Lists of Best High Schools

I thought you generally needed some sort of underlying worldview or metaphysic to determine appropriate moral action.

Otherwise, you are using other people and/or environment as your model, which doesn't really get you anywhere absent some sort of overarching framework because you have no way to evaluate what you *should* be doing because you have no objective yardstick, so to speak.

Everything you wrote depends on an individual's definition of "should be doing." Every person's worldview is heavily influenced by other people. You could argue that "school" or "the church" or "the law" are objective yardsticks, but all of these things come from people: the books are written by people, the words are spoken by people, and the ideas come from people, not from the institutions per se. And they all vary everywhere you go, according to people's different ideas and beliefs. So, no objectivity there. IMO, there is no objective yardstick. We all have to figure it out for ourselves (ideally by keeping the rights of others in mind at all times, but that's just my personal outlook).

"Mom/Dad and my teachers taught me to do whatever is necessary to 'get ahead' to get money and status. This has worked for me so far, so it must be what I should do. If I sell just a small number of bogus mortgages today, I won't be really causing a lot of damage but I'll make a lot of money. Besides everyone else is doing it, so it must be okay. "

"Mom/Dad and my teachers taught me to do whatever is necessary to 'get ahead' to get money and status. This means that I should do whatever is necessary to get an A on that take-home exam. The exam says I have to do it by myself, but this class is supposed to be a gut class and this exam is hard!!! That's not fair, so it's totally okay if I work with other students. And I should be doing whatever I can get get ahead. "

"Mom/Dad and my school taught me that I should be taking classes because I'm interested in learning about the subject, and that 'getting ahead' by any means possible can lead to serious problems. It says here that I have to do this take-home exam by myself. I should do it alone so that my grade reflects what I've learned. Besides, getting caught cheating would be way worse than getting a bad grade on this test. "

"Mom/Dad and my school taught me that if I do things that break laws, rules, or instructions from trusted authority figures, Howler monkeys will invite themselves to my home for a Karma party in my skanky honor, even if I do get immediate satisfaction from my malfeasance. I would NOT like Howler monkeys. Ergo, my exam should be my own work, since that is what the teacher said to do."


The world would be a MUCH better place with more Howler monkeys.

The question is what actions are good, what actions are neutral, and what actions bring in the Howler Monkeys.

Because we all get weighted in the scales whether we believe in them or not.

Just like gravity.

You don't get a choice when it comes to gravity.

Reality isn't a democracy.

And we defend against the truth because the truth is catastrophic (as in mathematical catastrophe theory).

Ain't life fun?

New York Magazine has a longer story, featuring the Stuyvesant ringleader's rationalizations.

http://nymag.com/news/features/cheating-2012-9/
Cheating Upwards
Stuyvesant kids do it. Harvard kids do it. Smart kids may especially do it. But why?
By Robert Kolker
September 16, 2012

From the article:

"The prime offender, they say, is the increased emphasis on testing. Success in school today depends not just on the SAT, but on a raft of federal and state standardized ­exams, often starting as early as fourth grade and continuing throughout high school. More than ever, those tests determine where kids go to college—and most kids believe that in an increasingly globalized, competitive world, college, more than ever, determines success. (A weak economy only intensifies the effect.) Carol Dweck is a Stanford psychology professor. Her research shows that when people focus on a score rather than on improvement, they develop a fixed idea of their intellectual abilities. They come to see school not as a place to grow and learn, but as a place to demonstrate their intelligence by means of a number."

I like the explanation that school is a place to "demonstrate their intelligence by means of a number."

This was precisely how I viewed college/law school.

I wasn't there to learn and grow, I was there to prove that I was inherently better than everyone else.

That didn't turn out so well.

I can say that I don't recommend that approach.

[quote=JonLaw]
I like the explanation that school is a place to "demonstrate their intelligence by means of a number."
[quote]

Unfortunately, in the legal world, this is how many big firms view it as well. My own experience bore this out. I had a horrible 2nd semester in my first year at law school where I earned my first and only "C"s in my academic career. This dragged down my GPA to 0.2 below the magic threshold where law firms would consider you for summer internships. The career counselors advised me to only apply to second tier firms. I barely managed to get a summer job at the last minute. My second year in law school, I had better grades. I pulled my GPA up by 3-4 points (don't recall the exact number anymore). I had tons of interviews and had people treat me completely differently. Seriously, the only significant difference was my GPA. Sad but true, numbers count.

Hi everyone - let's try to stay on topic here.