Can you justify cheating?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Human beings are a competive sort. In the job market, they compete for better jobs (i.e. pay). Often though falsified documents such as resumes are presented that help the job seeker get the job that he or she wants. If it were a case of survival I could favor the action, but otherwise, no.

Another common case of cheating is when one mate cheats on another. In general can you justify cheating or does it depend on a case-by-case basis? Or maybe not at all? What say you to this?

PhilX

[Blaggard]

I think game theory has shown that cheating generally leads to a less favourable result overall, which as it pertains to evolution in many social animals is generally detrimental. That said human beings are complicated, cheating becomes worthwhile if you can get away with it, and many people have, the question is if it is moral to do so? Or if in the log run it profits the whole, or even if it profits the cheat..?

I would hope it's not at all, but I suspect it is worthwhile enough to be nothing like, not at all, if you are realistic, especially in the short term, and especially over the short life people have. The long run, well who can say, and who of the cheats would care about the long run? On a case by case basis it is always going to favour some people, and it is always going to do damage to others as much as it favours the selfish cheat. The question is of course is, are you prepared to cheat on that basis, and the answer is of course many are. Tomorrow is another day.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Bullshit on your CV might get you a job, but you still have to be able to do the job. I don't think cheating ever pays off, because you are ultimately cheating yourself. I think 'cheating' is a mis-use of the word when it comes to being unfaithful to a partner. Another annoying Americanism.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Bullshit on your CV might get you a job, but you still have to be able to do the job. I don't think cheating ever pays off, because you are ultimately cheating yourself. I think 'cheating' is a mis-use of the word when it comes to being unfaithful to a partner. Another annoying Americanism.

With respect to companies, it has happened that workers have gone up the ladder to very high positions where fraudulent documents were submitted to begin with (and later to be exposed).

It seems to happen a lot in America (i.e. Hollywood is notorious for this) that a partner cheats on the other or even on one another sometimes. I can't speak for the rest of the world.

PhilX

[Skip]

Often though falsified documents such as resumes are presented that help the job seeker get the job that he or she wants. If it were a case of survival I could favor the action, but otherwise, no.

Look at the way current economics are conducted. It is a case of survival, often as not. Also, in certain occupations, the whole process of hiring and promotion is BS - has no relation to competence or adding value to the company or making some government agency function better, or doing right by the client, but is all about 'optics'. Often, the slickest BS artist is the best man for the job. In some areas, the person hiring has no clue what the requirements of the job are, but knows half a dozen buzz-words and would hire the glib applicant over the qualified one. Have you read Dilbert? Every frame is true.
In a game of Cheats, only cheaters can play.

Another common case of cheating is when one mate cheats on another.

This is entirely different. In personal relations, you make your own rules, negotiate with another individual with their own rules and come up with a mutual set of rules that you both agree to abide by. When you break shared rules, you forfeit the relationship. (This also goes for friendship, family, guild and fraternity.) Your personal rules of conduct are the manifestation of your core values. When you piss on your own moral code, you become a non-person.

In general can you justify cheating or does it depend on a case-by-case basis? Or maybe not at all?

It depends on the context. If cheating the pimp liberates a girl woman from forced prostitution, I'm all for it. If cheating on an exam gets another student in trouble, I'm against it. If cheating on an official document releases a subversive writer from prison, it's a good thing. If cheating in a sporting event deprives the rightful winner of the medal, it's a bad thing.

The world hasn't been black and white since 1956.

[Wyman]

Deception is one of the primary social skills learned by humans. Children must learn not to say certain things in public ('Hey, look at that man with the big wart on his nose, Mommy"), they must learn to get along with other people, even those they do not like(i.e., pretend they like them or at least don't tell them what they think about them). People must learn to flatter others, at least to some degree, to get along in society.

It is the eccentric oddball who 'Says exactly what's on his mind.' The rest have to keep many of their thoughts to themselves, which is a form of deception. Otherwise, just about every man would be constantly telling women that they'd like to have sex with them, or that they liked their behinds or breasts.

Cheating is a form of deception. So what we are saying when we say 'do not cheat' is: be good at deception, but only in the areas that are socially sanctioned for such activities.

It is like aggression or physical coercion. We want people to be aggressive if they play certain sports, or in combat. We prohibit it when it comes to other interactions. There is nothing good or bad in it by itself - qua deception or qua aggression. It is only good or bad in context and as it relates to society, other humans, and our laws.

Therefore, I could justify cheating as a 'good' human skill or ability. It only becomes bad when misused, contrary to social mores or laws.

[prof]

Cheating is a form of deception. So what we are saying when we say 'do not cheat' is: be good at deception, but only in the areas that are socially sanctioned for such activities.

Chaz, you may want to rewrite that after reflecting on what you said. For as it stands, it does not make sense. Its structure is: C is a form of D, so not-C is "be good at D." Huh

Is the logic, in its current form, weird and twisted?
... Am I the only one who noticed this?

We want people to be aggressive if ... in combat.

Here you are speaking for yourself. Who is the "we"? And what has combat to do with being ethical ...which is the topic of the forum and maybe the intent of the inquiry in the title of the thread.

It is only good or bad in context and as it relates to... other humans, and our laws.

This is true. Context is important. Spinoza noted this over400 years ago - and R. S. Hartman demonstrated the truth of it by using variables in his breakthrough which he entitled The Axiom of Value.

Therefore, I could justify cheating as a 'good' human skill or ability. It only becomes bad when misused, contrary to social mores or laws.

That is quite a large loophole. When you justify cheating, is that your idea of what being ethical is? To put it another way, Is cheating ethical?

You seem to be saying, Yes it is.

If that's the case, then tell us please What is unethical?

[p.s. When I use the word "cheating" I am not counting a student consulting google during an exam, for when the student gets out into the world, away from the classroom, s/he may consult all the references books, and look at all the wall-charts and tables that s/he believes are helpful to get a morally-worthwhile project done.

Nor do I include what a magician does, for that is deception for purposes of entertainment. The means (misdirection and patter) fit the noble end, which is to amuse and astonish - thus showing the limitations of sense-perception ...how easily it can be fooled and misled - and thus might be unreliable.

I do mean by "cheating": shady business and professional practices such as bait-and-switch, cutting corners, fraud, con-artistry, etc.]

[HexHammer]

Another completely retarded post from the retard of retards!

No wonder you don't have a job anymore, with this endless barrage of stupid questions!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Another completely retarded post from the retard of retards!

No wonder you don't have a job anymore, with this endless barrage of stupid questions!

Don't be mean.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Another completely retarded post from the retard of retards!

No wonder you don't have a job anymore, with this endless barrage of stupid questions!

Don't be mean.

VT,

I'm not even sure if this reject from humanity is referring to me as I started this thread back on 10/12.

If he is referring to me, then he's shortsighted as he doesn't even know whether I'm retired which he failed to consider. Let him be mean which is his true nature. It's interesting he's brought up livelihoods as he couldn't successfully persuade his (former?) bosses on how to save millions of dollars at his (former?) company so that shows how much of a philosopher he would be since he can't persuade (maybe that's why he's letting out his frustrations here for that reason).

PhilX

[tinarizk]

I stumbled upon this post by mere coincidence (though I don't believe much in coincidence), and wanted to share my opinion regarding cheating on a love partner.

If someone loves the other truly, then there ought not to be unfaithfulness. Love is harmony, compassion and loving the other in all his or her good and bad days, through health and sickness, wealth and poverty, etc.
A conditional love that weighs in the advantage and benefit we get isn't love.
A loved based solely on lust and physical attraction isn't love either.
Others are the mirrors of ourselves. By cheating others we are cheating ourselves in the first place. Every action starts in thoughts prior to actions, and by loving the other we ought to give him or her our thoughts, emotions in the first place, and by doing so there would be no place for cheating.