The situation presented where a student submits an assignment purchased from a paper-writing service as his/her own work provides a multi-level dilemma considering the current norm of academic integrity and anti-plagiarism policies. While an argument can be made that the service itself is unethical, the hypothetical posed does not provide enough information to determine, and ultimate accountability for the ethical failure rests with the student, as the ultimate decision-maker regarding the submission of the purchased assignment.
Justification Discussion
Justifications from the student’s perspective include time management concerns matched with an economic justification and a “no harm, no foul” situation. Both justifications spring from an immature ethical perspective and assume that the grade is the only reward at play. The “I don’t have time to complete the paper, besides, I’ve already paid for the class” justification operates in an egoist framework beyond the lack of active engagement in learning, but also a sense of economic entitlement, with the student’s assumption that education is an easily transferable item. With this explanation, the student underestimates the experiences gained from learning to manage time, learning to prioritize responsibilities, and even introduce to ethical problem-solving, demonstrating normative myopia (Hartman, DesJardins, & MacDonald, 2018, p. 42). The other student-specific justification mentioned in the hypothetical is likewise problematic. The “I wasn’t caught, so I didn’t do anything wrong” defense is also operating in the egoist mindset, but with the addition of an attempt at blame transference and self-exoneration.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The first two justifications are more applicable from the service’s perspective than a student’s perspective, although the justification that the completed assignments are posted to encourage new topics and exams to be developed does have limited application from a student's perspective. The citation justification is irrelevant, as the hypothetical outlines that the student is submitting the service’s work as his/her own and not citing the work. While instructors are known to recycle assignment topics and test questions, from an ethical perspective, this justification is not persuasive as it too involves blame shifting.
Basic Ethical Service Considerations
The ethics of such a service is conditional. Areas that would play a role in the ethical decision-making process would include the User Terms of Service, where the company’s stance on users submitting the assignments available through the system and the protection of their intellectual property rights would be documented. Overall, however, the ultimate justification for the existence of the service is to make a profit, and how the company defines its social responsibility will play a large role in the decision as to whether this service is ethical. Abuses of the service that contravene any terms of use and intellectual property rights are inherently unethical.
Other Considerations
Other areas for consideration include an analogy of the student/school relationship as a variation of the employee/employer relationship. With this relationship, the school serves as an entity to help prepare students for the job market, as is becoming a more prevalent expectation from colleges (Rosenbaum, Becker, Cepa, & Zapata-Gietl, 2016, p. 534), and while students are focusing on a more direct introduction to the job market, colleges are providing a testing ground to develop necessary intangible skills, including time management, project completions, working in groups, and understanding rules and consequences, that most employers seek and students frequently overlook as an important benefit (Geher, 2018). Other skills resulting from college coursework include critical thinking and an additional understanding of personal responsibility (“What to expect in college”, n.d.). While the goal is the degree, the other benefits are a part of the payment for the student’s engagement in their education.
The emphasis on the impermissibility of plagiarism has attained the status of a hypernym in the academic sphere. Warnings about and consequences of plagiarism are spelled out on school websites of all academic levels across the country. With this emphasis on academic integrity, there is no moral free space, or allowable area, for an ethical difference to exist regarding plagiarism (Hartman et al., 2018, pp. 306-7).
Accountability
While there are several stakeholders in the situation, including the student, their parents, the instructor, and the university department, as and whole, the crux of the situation is the decision to turn in someone else’s work as the student’s own. While parental stakeholders may have affected the decision, the ultimate accountability rests on the student. The instructor has a role in aiding enforcement of the school’s plagiarism policy, and the hypothetical that since the plagiarism wasn’t discovered by the instructor, it isn’t an infraction, is a misdirection. The intent in this situation is that inattentional blindness (Hartman et al., 2018, p. 42) will shift the focus of the issue from the student’s failure to comply with an academic integrity policy to the instructor’s failure to identify plagiarism.
Conclusion
Overall, the situation presented of a student presenting a purchased assignment as his/her own work is a poor ethical decision on the part of the student. The ethical standing of the service itself is questionable, as additional information is needed to determine acceptable use of the service’s products, and whether any terms of use were violated in the student’s decision. Accountability for the decision rests with the student in this situation, as the final decision-maker regarding the use of the purchased assignment and its submission as original work in violation of the academic integrity hypernym in the current scholastic paradigm.
References
- Geher, G. (2018, January 10). Why go to college? Psychology Today. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201801/why-go-college
- Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J., & MacDonald, C. (2018). Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity & social responsibility (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.
- Rosenbaum, J., Becker, K., Cepa, K., & Zapata-Gietl, C. (2016). Turning the question around: Do colleges fail to meet students’ expectations? Research in Higher Education, 57(5), 519-543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9398-3
- What to expect in college. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2019, from https://orientation.ucsc.edu/what-to-expect.html
Stuck on your essay?
