Personal moral philosophies are beliefs and rules that a person uses when making decisions. Discussing whether these models can be applied to one individual or all people is also a part of ethics. However, as all people have different backgrounds, education, religion, family, and other factors, their moral theories have unique features that may not completely align with the popular philosophical models created through the ages. The present reflection considers a personal moral theory and ties it to two ethical approaches. Then, the philosophy is applied to the case of Jane Doe to determine whether her actions can be considered moral or immoral. Finally, other philosophical views are used to propose a solution to Jane Doe’s problem.
My moral theory does not fully adhere to any of the existing ethical models because it considers both the consequences of one’s actions and their intent. I believe that the maxim of an act is vital in deciding whether the act is moral or not. However, I also think that the outcome of an action plays a role in whether it can be considered ethically good for oneself and society. For example, a person regularly makes a contribution to a charity, which provides them with a substantial tax deduction. It may be viewed as a moral act because the donated money can resolve people’s problems, improve the environment, and lead to other potential positive outcomes. This part of my personal approach resembles the ideas proposed by utilitarianism, as the latter theory states that “the ends (if, the best outcome) justify the means” (Martin et al., 2021, p. 66). If a certain act brings happiness to people and is helpful, then it is virtuous.
However, if this same person is donating to charity for financial gain without thinking about this charity’s goals, then morality becomes more complex. I believe such actions cannot be considered entirely moral, as their intent does not align with my values of compassion and benevolence. In this case, deontology is the theory that shares this view, which argues that some actions can be considered ethical in all circumstances because of their virtuous intent (Martin et al., 2021). In contrast, maxims not driven by righteous thoughts can only be a part of unethical acts, even if they lead to positive results. While the two described ideas may seem contradictory, I believe applying them in individual contexts is vital. It helps refrain from judging each event and outcome as either strictly good or bad, moral or immoral. Each case requires a reflection and analysis that allow one to weigh all facts and consider personal details.
Following this personal theory, the case of Jane Doe is unethical to a degree. First, it is essential to investigate the consequences of Jane Doe’s actions. Each week, Jane submitted papers breaching the university’s rules in one way or another. However, plagiarism was not detected, and Jane was able to get a good grade on each work. As a result, Jane likely passed the course or was close to finishing it. This outcome is positive for Jane, who may continue her education and pursue other subjects that are more engaging and pertinent to her job. Furthermore, it does not appear that the university, other students, or authors of the essays were harmed in any way, implying that the overall happiness was increased as a result. This means that Jane’s actions can be considered moral as they did not worsen the situation for others and led to positive outcomes.
Nevertheless, the intent behind Jane’s actions contradicts this conclusion and puts the morality of her actions into question. Jane made a conscious decision to break the university’s rules several times as she sought different ways to plagiarize existing material. Therefore, her maxim was to pass the class by any means necessary rather than by following the guidelines of the organization. An act of plagiarism can be considered a breach of trust between Jane and her school, as the latter establishes the rules in the form of a contract, which implies the rules’ authority. Moreover, while the professor did not discover Jane’s transgressions, her actions put her, another student, and the professor at risk of being reprimanded for the plagiarized work. Thus, her intent could also be viewed as self-centered, which goes against my moral theory. Therefore, while Jane’s actions did not harm anyone in real life, the potential for danger and Jane’s intent make her actions unethical.
Some of the actions taken by Jane Doe appear more unethical than others. Lesser transgressions are the instances of self-plagiarism and uploading a blank paper, as they do not involve other people and show that Jane could potentially contribute to the course. However, translating another author’s work or taking a complete essay from the internet and posing them as her own creations is immoral. The intent behind these acts shows an absolute refusal to follow the regulations of the university and also demonstrates Jane’s unwillingness to participate in the learning process. Moreover, while taking her work or getting an extension does not constitute stealing, the other acts can be considered theft. Although Jane was not caught, theft could lead to serious adverse outcomes for Jane and other participants, making these actions unethical.
Jane escaped punishment for her acts, as her papers were graded without checking for plagiarism. Nevertheless, social action can prevent such events in the future or help evaluate Jane’s situation and participation in the course. According to the “veil of ignorance” principle, Jane’s actions should not be judged differently from the same acts committed by people with other circumstances (Overall & Gedeon, 2022). In this case, Jane’s argument is that she did not have enough time to study due to her strained economic situation, which could become an aspect of creating a lesser punishment for her. However, most schools have a zero-tolerance policy on plagiarism, which aligns with the “veil of ignorance” idea (Nabee et al., 2020; Overall & Gedeon, 2022). Based on this theory, similar to other students who plagiarize work, Jane should be expelled or excluded from the course. The same conclusion is drawn from deontological principles, which may see theft and plagiarism as unjust under any circumstances (Martin et al., 2021). The two theories are likely to disregard Jane’s social values.
To conclude, Jane’s actions are rather immoral when analyzed using the theories of deontology, the “veil of ignorance,” and my personal approach. Although Jane’s financial situation can appear as a factor in reducing the student’s guilt, it does not fully negate the intent behind plagiarism. Jane’s continuous plagiarism creates a potential risk for her and other people, but, in reality, the outcomes do not seem to be negative for the involved individuals. Some theories, such as deontology, argue that social action should not distinguish between different circumstances and should base the decision on intent and the possibility of equal punishment.
References
Martin, R., Kusev, P., Teal, J., Baranova, V., & Rigal, B. (2021). Moral decision making: From Bentham to veil of ignorance via perspective taking accessibility. Behavioral Sciences, 11(5), 66.
Nabee, S. G., Mageto, J., & Pisa, N. (2020). Investigating predictors of academic plagiarism among university students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(12), 264-280.
Overall, J., & Gedeon, S. (2022). Rational egoism virtue-based ethical beliefs and subjective happiness: An empirical investigation. Philosophy of Management, 1-22.