OSC/Department of Philosophy Ethics Seminar In Academic Integrity and Student Conduct

March 23 , 2005, 2:30-4:30 p.m. in OSC Conference Room

Dr. Nancy Stanlick

Department of Philosophy

Description and Objective: This seminar is an overview of ethical issues involved with academic integrity and student conduct relevant to violations of the UCF Golden Rule and the UCF Creed, or any violation of university policy consistent with attendance in this course. It includes discussion of one or more major ethical theories or orientations as they relate to particular cases of moral action and decision-making. Discussion includes academic dishonesty and other violations of the UCF Golden Rule. Specific moral issues may include moral responsibility, obligations to oneself and others, and the relationship of the individual to the community.

Note: Some people attending this seminar may be doing so for some violation of academic integrity having to do with academic dishonesty. Others may be attending for some violation of the UCF Golden Rule. Whatever the case may be, everyone is responsible for completing any and all assignments listed below.

Background Information on Ethical Theories Relevant to Concepts and Assignments

Ethical Theories, Principles, and Related Concepts:

1. Utilitarianism. A moral theory requiring that each person perform actions that create the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and if that is not possible, at least perform actions that reduce or eliminate pain or suffering as much as possible. The utilitarian generally holds that intellectual pleasures (the kind requiring the use of unique human faculties) are preferable to lower pleasures (physical, primarily). The ultimate goal for the utilitarian is happiness, but not simply the happiness of one person, but the happiness of the greatest number. The ultimate rule of Utilitarianism is The Principle of Utility. Information on this ethical theory (general description and some other information) is available at: http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Utilitarianism/
2. Deontology. A moral theory requiring that an action is right when it is done out of duty - that is, out of respect for duty, not simply in accordance with duty, or out of fear that if you don't do what is required, you will suffer some unpleasant punishment. Duty is determined based on considerations of rationality and human autonomy, and the morally right action is the one whose maxim, or rule, can be universalized AND the one that never treats other rational beings (generally, humans) as means to ends, but only as ends in themselves. The ultimate moral rule of deontology (from Immanuel Kant) is the categorical imperative. Information about this ethical theory (description and additional information) is available at: http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Kant/
3. Virtue Ethics. A moral theory centrally concerning the relationship between the character of a human being and the community in which he or she lives. There are no particular moral rules that the virtue theorist derives. Instead, the virtue theorist relies heavily on the determination of morally good action from the point of view of the virtuous person (a moral exemplar). Information on this theory (description and additional information) is available at: http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Aristotle/
4. Egoism. Egoism isn't really an ethical theory, but it informs some aspects of all other ethical theories either by being accepted, rejected, or at least recognized as a problematic position for the moral life. Egoism is more a theory of human nature than it is a theory of ethics. There are, however, some who would argue against this claim. One person in particular who would do so is Ayn Rand (who was an ethical egoist). Rand claimed that the world would work best when all individuals act all and only for their own best interest, and that it is in the interest of everyone to do so. A psychological egoist is a person who claims that all of our actions are always done with a view to obtaining our own best interest. There are some serious problems with egoism, but there are also some good points to it. One very serious problem with egoism concerns the problem of conflicts of interest between people competing for the same position, good, or benefit. It is the example of two politicians, both of whom are egoists and both of whom are competing for the same political office. What do you suppose would be in the best interest of each of the politicians regarding their chances of winning the election? Information on egoism is available at: http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/Egoism/

Seminar Requirements:

All those assigned to attend this course by the Office of Student Conduct or any faculty member or other department in the University are responsible for attending, participating in discussion, and submitting the SIX assignments listed below. The assignments must be your own original work. If you do not attend the seminar, submitting assignments does not count. You must attend AND submit the assignments to complete this seminar in a satisfactory manner.

The assignments are due 7 days after the meeting of the seminar by 4:30 p.m. as e-mail attachments. Send to stanlick@mail.ucf.edu and make sure that your name is clearly indicated in the e-mail in the "from" field and/or as a signature line AND that your documents are saved with your last name and the name of the assignment. So, for example, name the a document something like: smithvideo and the creed and Golden Rule document as smithcreed, or something very similar. Please remember to make sure that your name appears in the e-mail AND on each of the assignments.  

Remember that the deadline is SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE MEETING OF THE SEMINAR. This means, for example, that if the seminar meets on Wednesday, all the assignments are due on Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. in the following week.

1. Assignment 1 (readings and essay): Go to the following link and read the article written by a faculty member from the University of Georgia in The Journal of College and Character. Write a 1-2 page, double spaced, thoughtful and considered essay replying to the argument presented regarding teaching character and ethics at the college level. That is, do you agree with him, or not? If not, why not? If so, why is that the case? See: Journal of College and Character Article.
2. Assignment 2 (readings and essay): Here is another article from the same site in which a theorist discusses the value of communitarianism in colleges and universities. See: Communitarianism: Implications for Addressing College Student Values. Now go to the links for UCF's Creed at http://www.sdes.ucf.edu and for the UCF Golden Rule at http://www.goldenrule.sdes.ucf.edu. Write a brief essay (1-2 pages) explaining how these statements of UCF's expectations for all members of the academic community are related to the concepts expressed in the article on communitarianism.
3. Assignment 3 (reading and essay): Go to this article, written by a student from Duke University. The article is called "College: An Opportunity for Reinvention." Taking into account what it was that led to your being required to attend this seminar, explain the way or ways in which you believe that your action is or is not a reflection of what you understand to be your "true" self as discussed in the article. (2-3 pages)
4. Assignment 4 (discussed in class AND including an essay): Go to this link (http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~stanlick/modifieddrawbridge.htm)for a modified version of "The Drawbridge" case regarding moral responsibility. It will be discussed during the seminar. Based on the drawbridge problem the ethical theories under consideration (see this link for cases illustrating various moral views: http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~stanlick/ethicsnotes.html) (and also see the links, above, for descriptions of various ethical theories) explain the sense in which each person is in some way responsible for the wrongdoing illustrated in this hypothetical case. This essay should be 2-3 pages in length.
5. Assignment 5 (film is shown during the seminar AND includes an essay): This link (short film) is available during the meeting of the seminar. It may not work UNLESS you are a registered member of the Center For Academic Integrity. See http://www.academicintegrity.org/06dream_256.asx. Concentrating on any one of the scenarios imagined by the student who ultimately decides not to cheat, explain which theory of ethics the student is using to justify his refusal? Which theory of ethics is the student using who tries to encourage his roommate to cheat? Explain. (2-3 pages)
6. Assignment 6 (evaluation): Finally, go to this link: http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~stanlick/OSCethicsevaluation.html. Fill out the form with your honest responses, save the file and return it to me with your other assignments. What you say about the content, requirements, expectations, or other aspects of the seminar does not affect your status as having completed the seminar or its other requirements. Remember, however, that filling out and turning in this form IS one of the requirements for satisfactory completion of the seminar.

Additional Information/Links on Avoiding Plagiarism:

See http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/wts/plagiarism.html .

See http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_home.html .

Please write carefully in all the assignments so that you receive credit for completing them.

NOTE: No element of these assignments may be submitted in handwritten form.

Consider these Instances of violation of the UCF Golden Rule or Creed:

1. You are filling out a university-related form that asks you whether you have ever been convicted of a felony and you answer that you have not -- but you have. Why do you have a moral obligation not to lie on this form?

2. Your roommate has been bugging you lately. He never cleans up after himself, he forgets to lock the door to the apartment when he leaves, and he plays loud and annoying country music in the middle of the night, waking you from a sound sleep. You ask him to clean up, lock the door, and to stop playing that music all the time (or at least turn it down), and he refuses. You lose your patience with him and punch him. Which of you has done something morally wrong? Why?

3. You are 21 years old and go to a liquor store to buy beer. One of your friends from a class is only 18, but asks you to pick up a six-pack of beer for her. You happily comply with her request. What is morally wrong, if anything, with your action? What about the 18-year old who asks you to buy beer for her?

4. You are living in UCF housing and have prescription medications in your room (but the medications and the prescription aren't yours - even though you are taking them). What obligation to the university have you violated? Why?

5. You notice two young men walking together on campus and holding hands with each other. You yell several comments at them regarding their sexual orientation. When they ignore you and continue walking away, you and several of your friends run up behind them, continuing to harrass them. They ask you to stop, and when they do so, you threaten (but do not act on it) them with bodily harm. Have you done anything morally wrong? Why?

6. A faculty member asks you to leave her class because you are being disruptive by making snide and inappropriate comments about a question asked of the faculty member by another student. You refuse to leave, and the faculty member calls the University Police. What have you done that is a violation of the GR or the Creed?

7. You and a bunch of your friends are out late on a weekend and, finding yourselves bored, decide to egg the cars of students from a rival fraternity. What have you done that is a violation of the GR or the Creed?

Note:

If you have any questions about the content of this seminar, please contact me at stanlick@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu or come by during my office hours.  See http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~stanlick or http://www.cas.ucf.edu/philosophy.