On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:44:03 -0400, Christopher D. Green wrote: > Mike Palij wrote: >> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:09:02 -0700 Chris Green wrote: >>> Mike Palij wrote: >>>> Okay. Could you please specify the conditions under which you find >>>> plagiarism in a student's work acceptable and would not comment on it? >>>> From a relativistic perspective, some forms of plagiarism would appear >>>> to be acceptable (indeed, on TiPS some have argued that >>>> self-plagiarism by a researcher can be justified). Under what >>>> conditions would a "recycled" paper, essay, or presentation be >>>> acceptable? >>>> >>> Funny you should bring up precisely this example. An article on just >>> this came up in Inside Higher Ed just the other day. It specifies >>> exactly the conditions under which our particular, cultural prohibitions >>> might not be appropriate to enforce: >>> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/16/cheat >>> >> I must have missed where in the article it says that a student enrolled >> in a U.S. or Canadian college is allowed to plagiarize papers, the >> initial paragraph notwithstanding. > > Who said anything about being enrolled in a US or Canadian university?
I did. The "relativist" Michael Smith argued that morality is relative (i.e., dependent upon local conditions instead of having universal aplicability) and I asked him to specify the conditions under which he would permit plagiarism by students in his courses. I recall that Michael Smith teaches at a Canadian university and I assume that his school has some formal policy about plagiarism which is probably stated in "absolute" terms (e.g., "all material submitted for grading in a course has to be a student's original work outside of group projects"). If Michael Smith does not believe in such absolute restrictions, then he must believe that there are conditions under which plagiarism is justified or "business as usual" *in his courses*. I did not ask him if he thought that plagiarism might be acceptable in other cultures. > The question was whether ethical standards such as these are relative, > e.g., to their cultural contexts. Whose question are you referring to? That was not my question. As made clear in the material you snipped from my post, I freely admit that even within a single culture, there may be opposing ethical standards which reasonable people may disagree upon (e.g., the "sanctity" of life, the importance of having a good quality of life, and whether one trumps another) just as there may be people who hold questionable "ethical" positions (e.g., that the following are good things: cannabalism, sex with children, killing people who piss you off, that people are inherently unequal in all senses, genocide, cheating is only bad if you get caught, and so on). Notions about what is ethical behavior, what are guiding ethical principles, and how to enforce conformity to those principles are, like most cultural artefacts, subject to local influences and evolve over time. With respect to basic human rights, we now have a framework that many subscribe to (e.g., see: http://www.amnestyusa.org/human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/page.do?id=1031003 ) but which in many places on the planet is still only honored in its breech. One may not agree with such a framework but one should understand that their representatives (i.e., their government) has put them under an obligation to honor and respect the following points: |WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and |inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation |of freedom, justice and peace in the world, | |WHEREAS disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in |barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the |advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech |and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the |highest aspiration of the common people, | |WHEREAS it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, |as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human |rights should be protected by the rule of law, | |WHEREAS it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations |between nations, | |WHEREAS the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed |their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human |person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to |promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, | |WHEREAS Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation |with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance |of human rights and fundamental freedoms, | |WHEREAS a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the |greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, | |Now, therefore, the General Assembly Proclaims |THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common |standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every |individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in |mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights |and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure |their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples |of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their |jurisdiction. Educational practices are not yet standardized internationally and local customs may emphasize certain social principles over others (e.g., social cooperation/conformity is more important that individual acheivement) but I forsee a day when there may be such international standards (e.g., science get taught in science class and not the local religious dogma). > This article demonstrates that they are. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. There is no question that different cultures have different educational standards. This is true even within a nation or region which is why there are oversight organizations to make sure that colleges and other educational institutions conform to certain prinicples (accreditation review, anyone?). The question is whether one identifies one set of standards and attempts to act in accordance with them. Perhaps there is a confusion about what a "moral relativist" position is. I think that there are at least three different ways of thinking about it: (1) one ethical principle does not dominate all other ethical principles (e.g., the sanctity of life does not overrule other considerations, such the quality of life), (2) an ethical principle is like the "pirate code" (see Capt Jack Sparrow), more like general guidelines than strict rules to follow (i.e., violations, as long as they are defendable, are acceptable), and (3) since every situation represents a unique combination of influences and history, no single overarching principle can be followed except "do what you have to do" in order to achieve some goal. That is, if one has to lie, cheat, steal, and kill in order to achieve some goal (e.g., world domination or simpe survival) that's okay. There probably are other positions as well but I'll leave it to the relativists to explain what they are talking about. > If you limit the range of your consideration to a single cultural > base, then (Shazam!) you're going find to that they appear to be > absolute. This harkens back to an earlier discussion we had about the > proper use of begging the question. I beg to differ. One can hold many opinions about, say, human rights. In certain societies, only key individuals have "human rights" and in other societies it may be felt that "human rights" are universal, that is, every human is entitled (even within a society there may be groups who feel that certain groups are not entitled to certain rights [e.g., fascists and other right-wing individuals who believe in the superiority of certain groups over others]). Unless one believes that ethical rules are given by some omniscient, omnipotent sources, it should come as no surprise that ethical rules evolve over time and gain currency in many cultural contexts which did not originate them (the U.N. Declaration of Human Right is a case in point). So, Chris, if you're arguing for a relativist position let me ask: under what conditions is it appropriate for a person to own another person as property, that is, when is slavery an acceptable culture practice and what ethical principle(s) are used to support this practice. NOTE: arguments based on purely economic considerations are not very popular right now. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
