My humble opinion. University is about learning (not, for example, status). Learning is something strictly personal. There is nothing fundamentally universally wrong to cheat at an exam beside the fact you may be harming yourself.
Now since we need a little order for various secondary reasons, we promoted exam cheating to illegal and that's ok. We need order. But there is nothing someone should feel guilt for imho, assuming the person knows she may be harming herself.
I agree with this. I would further suggest that the modern conflation of two orthogonal functions (teaching and certification) in universities is rather misguided. These would be better served by two separate types of institution.
> These would be better served by two separate types of institution.
For a long time, they were. A technical school certifies someone to do something. A university teaches you how to think about hard things (supposed to, anyway).
I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about ethics.
"There is nothing fundamentally universally wrong to cheat at an exam beside the fact you may be harming yourself."
I don't understand that, I have no idea where you got that. Or what those words "fundamentally" and "universally" add. I say it's wrong, you say "Oh, but it's not fundamentally, universally wrong".. As if it's clear what that means.
For example: You may have harmed the people who didn't get good enough marks because you cheated your way into higher marks. Then you may harm people in your career that you're not qualified for, besides stopping properly qualified people from doing their jobs. I don't want an airlane pilot or doctor that bought their degree or cheated in exams, thanks. Anyway, it seems ridiculous that I have to explain to people why cheating's bad. Well, I don't know, maybe you are in a country where it's normal, perfectly fine, accepted, everyone does it. Where I come from, people don't have to have it explained to them why it's bad.
Yes, cheating is bad. But if you want to be interviewed to the job you need to see if is qualify to the job; some people can be good even if you have not went to the university or other schools, and even if you answered the exam it does not mean you are better at that particular job than another candidate but only that you know the answer of questions (or successfully cheating without being caught) and can be good at examsmanship.
If you are good at mathematics, you will invent a new theorem! If you are good at music, you will compose a new music! If you are good at chess, you can win! If you are good at exam answering, you can earn some more marks (guessing at answers if you do not know the answer)!
'Cheating at an exam' is transgressing a rule that doesn't "exist" in nature, it only exists in our social (if that's the right word) system. So if I cheat at an exam, I'm breaking a rule that's in the system that we made up (together), and therefore I can judge that, in some circumstances, I can break the rule without feeling morally wrong, without feeling guilt, because I, in some sense, made the rule myself. I'm breaking my own-making rule.
Another example of that could be: I want my kid to go to bed at 9pm. Sometimes I will break that rule. To some extend, because of the reasons I've advanced, I claim that cheating at an exam follows the same characteristic as the "kid go to bed at 9pm". Just not in the same magnitude if you will.
I then guessed that it may draws the limit between what's ethic and moral.
Hi again. I don't see how that draws any limit/distinction - it was 2 examples of rules that can be broken, not sure how that helps explain the difference, or why you said that. I wouldn't say bedtime is a moral rule/principle, or that breaking it is unethical. Maybe could make it clearer for me which one was supposed to illustrate what, if one was meant to be ethical, one moral, or something, I don't know. I really have never heard the words used with much or any difference. (I'm no expert, but have read dozens of ethics books, studied ethics/moral philosophy at uni etc)
I'm just guessing here, but maybe you have a religious value system, with absolute moral commandments or something? All I have (as an atheist) are ethical/moral principles exactly like 'cheating is wrong'.
You say 'cheating is wrong'. Fair enough, you can see 'right or wrong' as binary. Or you can live in the real world and understand that things are a little more complicated than that. With all the information you have out here (more than your hypothesis) you can make a fairer judgement. And you don't do judgement without introducing the living anyway because only what's living can judge and be judge-able. It's a social thing to judge right or wrong. So you have to take into account all the system. The living.
Yes. Learning is yourself. (University is also supposed to be about learning, although this is only partially true as it is implemented.) They have exam you can test, but that is difference from learning, although if you know the answer then you can see if you know the subject being learned. But you do not have to learn only that way; you can do many thing such as to read a book, figure out by yourself, or in this case, to attend the lecture. If you have a question because you do not understand the lecture, then you should ask, and that is how you can learn. Also, examsmanship is not same as learning the other subject, but, still you can learn examsmanship too. Noticed I mentioned before, I might to accept if the stuff you did for the cheating is subject of the class anyways such that it mean is good at it, then perhaps you can earn "SG" (meaning that, you pass regardless of what is your mark).
But still, memorization is not the same as learning. That is one thing that the test is not always so good; whether or not is "ethic" and/or legal is independence from that, because if you understand, then you can do, but if you know the word but don't actually know what is the significance, then you might answer the question same like that one but not the difference question that you can actually use.
(I remember once on one exam, the last question I did not know, and cheated off of someone who also didn't know and was cheating off of me (I don't know if they were cheating on other questions too or not, only that it is for last question), so in this case we cheat off of each other. Of course it is no good compared to all of the effort they mentioned above, but still you can see, you can be cheating off of each other the same question. I think this is the only instance of cheating on exams I have done, although once I tried to use the "coughing code" (without telling anyone!!!) just to see if I can, and not because I actually wanted to cheat, because I don't want to cheat.)
Now since we need a little order for various secondary reasons, we promoted exam cheating to illegal and that's ok. We need order. But there is nothing someone should feel guilt for imho, assuming the person knows she may be harming herself.