I wrote an earlier reply to someone about how all I learned from the several mandatory ethics courses is that the people who cheat tend to be winners even after their punishment, if any.
I bet that even after all this, that kid will still be better off having cheated than not.
I am curious, what is the definition of winners here? Do they make more money or do they invent more successful products/ideas or is it something else?
Money, social acceptance, access to desirable partners, positions of prestige, etc. All the nice things we wrestle over in life.
Anything you compete for except the “he was a good man” phrasing in obituaries, the cheaters usually get to have. Even if caught.
Not cheating outside of a few really heinous crimes such as murder (killing your science fair opponent wouldn’t be a winning strategy if caught) is an altruistic action.
> Not cheating outside of a few really heinous crimes such as murder (killing your science fair opponent wouldn’t be a winning strategy if caught) is an altruistic action.
I can only imagine someone trying to justify cheating would say that.
Cheating on your spouse is okay? Not cheating on your spouse altruistic? That concept is alien to me. I don't understand someone having no self-respect or being completely numb to how others feel. I know some exist, but I can't comprehend.
If there's "winning" in life it's through living a good and happy life. Some time past our teenage years I think all but the most self-adsorbed people realize that being kind and respectful to others also contributes to our own happiness.
I bet that even after all this, that kid will still be better off having cheated than not.