Dear Readers of Kankan Chadash,
Northwest Yeshiva High School is hosting its annual Shabbaton (weekend retreat) at the beginning of February. The teachers at NYHS conduct learning/discussion sessions over the course of the Shabbaton. This year Rabbi Margolese wanted to discuss the topic of cheating. Specifically, Rabbi Margolese suggested the question: "Is there ever a time that cheating is appropriate?"
Rabbi C.D. Weiss - who, I take it, will be leading one of these discussion groups - asked me to ask the readers of this blog what they thought about the question. Aside from hearing and discussing your answers to this question, Rabbi Weiss would like to determine the best way to frame the topic of cheating in the discussion with the students. Is the question as formulated by Rabbi Margolese the best way to introduce the discussion? Is its scope too narrow? Is the question slanted? Can cheating be taken up as its own topic, or is merely a subtopic of lying, stealing, or illegality of any kind?
Bear in mind that this question will be approached from multiple angles: ethical, philosophical, halakhic, social, etc. Thus, any thoughts would be most appreciated by myself, the staff, and the students of NYHS.
Thanks!
- Matt
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
1) Would cheating reinforce the idea that I am the center of the universe, and that everything around me is for my benefit?
Meaning, I do not have to subscribe to reality because cheating gives me the illusion that I am able to make reality subscribe to me.
2) Justice...
Anonymous - Would you please explain the connection you're making between justice and cheating?
Just from a marketing perspective, I don't particularly like the idea of titling a discussion -- which I imagine lasting a number of hours -- with a yes or no question, which takes less than a moment to answer. The appropriate role of cheating in school and in life or something like that seems more effective and more befitting the forum. Also, with the type of title I'm suggesting, the moderator may properly use cheating as a synecdoche for dishonesty so the discussion of cheating may be a springboard for a more general discussion of lying or even justice, whereas if a closed-ended question is used as the title, generalization may seem to the participant like a nearly irrelevant digression.
can we first define cheating?
Anonymous,
I agree with #1, and I would also like you to elaborate on #2.
Kenbot,
I agree. We did a "test run" of the discussion last Friday night at the Shabbos table and things played out as you described. I like your formulation of the topic, but do you think it is possible to formulate specific questions to stimulate discussion?
Anonymous,
I would suggest the following definition of cheating: representing work you didn't do as your own. How is that?
Matt,
I think first off you have to define what " cheating is", if you define something too broadly then you can always make it such that it is always wrong, or always right ( depending on the way you define it) so first I think you must define it.
I got the following off of the merriam webster dictionary online
Cheat:
transitive verb
1: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
3: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting cheat death
intransitive verb
1 a: to practice fraud or trickery b: to violate rules dishonestly cheat at cards cheating on a test
2: to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on was cheating on his wife
3: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area ,the shortstop was cheating toward second base
It would appear that the common denominator to all of the uses is dishonesty, I think there are other issues at play depending on which usage you are using, if we assume that Rabbis Weiss and Margolese ( Nrv) are using it in terms of test taking in which case it would appear that you can add other problems ( or questions) like geneivas daas, maybe monetary geneiva
I would say that in terms of dishonesty that is a good philosophical question, what is a lie and is a lie ever good?
It's essential to tell the truth at all times. This will reduce life's pain. Lying distorts reality. All forms of distorted thinking must be corrected.”- John Bradshaw
We know ( although I have to remember where) that there are times in halacha when lying is not only permissible but required, also in Tanach with Abraham and Sarah. Clearly the idea of Bradshaw has to be refined. It would seem that there are times when there is a higher reality to serve that one can deny
( these are sort of randomly thought out but I wanted to get them out to provoke clarity)
of course I do not want to get too far off of the actual question and my divergence into lying is because I see it as a possible problem with cheating
....
jake
I think some good questions to start off with are
What are some different, specific, hypothetical ways you may cheat?
Hypothetically, why do you cheat?
In that hypothetical scenario, does cheating accomplish that goal? How so? How not?
I think those questions will spark interest and participation and will also start the discussion off on the road to definition.
The first question might better be framed as, "In what scenarios would a hypothetical cheater consider cheating?" and the second something like, "Why in those situations? What is she trying to accomplish?"
I agree with the commenter who didn't like the yes/no format of the question. I would ask what cheating is replacing--what is it you don't have to do if you cheat instead? Once you identify that, why is cheating more advantageous/better than doing that thing, in the short term and in the long term, or is it? (Copying someone's homework saves you time in the short term but what does it give you long term?)
i would pose the question to the students in the following way: do the ends really ever justify the means?
explanation: most students agree on a fundamental level that cheating is immoral and therefore a conversation which simply reiterates this idea may be somewhat fruitless. the above title though addresses the real issue, namely, that students will often make exceptions to the general rule of "no cheating" stemming from an emotional or psychological notion which has come to distort the ethic they would otherwise adhere to. I once got into a debate with a 10th grader during a similar seminar-type environment where he argued that cheating is never acceptable unless you are in a situation where you can predict that the result of this particular test score will have an adverse effect on your acceptance into the college of your choice rendering you less likely to be successful in business and thus rendering you someone who does not give enough tsedakah-this would include finals, SAT's MCAT's and the like. If the idea of cheating being immoral was presented to him in the typical fashion without this specific exception of his being challenged, he would merely say to himself "well of course i agree, however i have a valid exception." that's why i think the question has to challenge students' understanding of the ends justifying the means in a straight-up frontal manner in order for the session to be effective
David,
I like your approach. It is very Mishleic: practical, realistic, and rooted in experience. I would like to point out one pitfall of this approach. It is easy to ask "Do the means ever justify the ends?" without examining the ends themselves. In your example, the 10th grader was making certain assumptions about the ends he had adapted: a certain definition of tzedakah, a hierarchy of tzedakah vs. law-violation, which ultimately come down to his notion of the Good. In other words, in a full investigation, the question of "What is Good?" must precede questions of means and ends.
Matt,
You are right and I totally agree. Assumptions regarding broadly utilized terms such as "the good" could lead to much confusion and miscommunication. This is particularly true during a seminar session with many kids involved at once who, to begin with, each have their own under-developed notions of these terms especially from a philosophical perspective.
Post a Comment