Law School Discussion

Would you snitch on someone cheating on the LSAT?

Re: Would you snitch on someone cheating on the LSAT?
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2004, 12:07:47 AM »
There is no way in hell I would tell. If anything, I would envy that person for being so brave. If that person did indeed get a great score by cheating, I would salute him.

DanielN

  • ****
  • 387
  • who the hell is this? ... seriously!
    • View Profile
Re: Would you snitch on someone cheating on the LSAT?
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2004, 12:16:03 AM »
ok i was being sarcastic but it backfired because now i can't tell if future is being sarcastic. but its late. damn non-languistical typing!

Re: Would you snitch on someone cheating on the LSAT?
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2004, 08:40:22 AM »
They're two completely different ethical, and legal, points so how is it hypocritical?    If you think the methods should only be mine if I pay for them, then will you argue that as long as I cheat the LSAT by buying my score, then this is legitimate?  One is a ethical/legal challange against copyright, while the other is an ethical/legal challange against cheating on the LSAT.  I don't see how it's even comparable.

Youre overanalyzing.

And honestly youre not even making sense.


We are talking about fairness here. Downloading LR Bible for free while others have to pay is not fair but they dont have a problem with that. But they are screaming no fair when it comes test time and someone is cheating. Do you get it now?


Another disclaimer . . . . I'm talking about in general. Im not saying everyone who said they would snitch downloaded the LR Bible. Just seems like the majority of LSD never had a problem with it. But a majority of LSD have a problem with someone cheating on the LSAT.



Victor, if you generalize to the level where everything is about some nebulous idea of fairness rather than divide the two acts into useful categories, the extension of such an analogy makes anyone a hypocrite.  Kant's categorical imperative paraphrased says, "if you're making an exception for yourself, it's wrong."  But how often do all of us in our daily lives do things we know are exceptions, and that we would never want anyone else to do?  Those actions are unfair, this is true, but I somehow doubt that not wiping the toilet seat after I drip on it makes my pointing out a cheater hypocritical.

They are two completely separate issues.  Yes, they indicate that I am unfair in one way and demand fairness in another way, but this statement is so general as to be completely useless.  In short, the other guy is making sense, and you're not.  Posting copyrighted materials is wrong.  Sure.  But if you partake in that activity, it should not stop you from revealing a cheat on the day of the LSAT.

->Soon

  • *****
  • 18818
    • View Profile
Re: Would you snitch on someone cheating on the LSAT?
« Reply #53 on: October 05, 2006, 07:05:59 AM »
try b1ackmai1ing them first.

Re: Would you snitch on someone cheating on the LSAT?
« Reply #54 on: October 06, 2006, 08:10:19 AM »
Even though I know he is likely being sarcastic, I think that Mr. Future hits on a very interesting consideration that  reflects on how our society defines "earning" something.  It seems to me that one of the core foundations of capitalistic society is that there are 3 ways to justly achieve a higher income or status: hard work, luck, and assumption of risk.  The first two are obvious but what of "assumption of risk?"

Ingrained in our notion of "success" is the fact that one need not necessarily be the smartest or hardest working to achieve it. Sometimes the successful person is just the person with the "biggest stones" who puts the most on the line in hopes of achieving the highest award (IE- putting your life savings on the line to invest in a risky venture that takes off). Likewise, when someone makes the decision to cheat on the LSAT, they are making a huge gamble in hopes of a (likely) moderate increase in score. They put it all in and take a risk that most of us would never dream of: banking their entire (legal) future on the fact that they will not get caught.  Considering the the odds are heavily stacked against them, they are taking a perilous bet and it could be argued that they have technically "earned" their higher score by virtue of being willing to take that gamble and risk losing out on LS altogether. 

My favorite analogy  for this is the guy on the motorcycle that weaves in and out of a traffic jam, conceivably arriving at his destination sooner than everyone else.  This angers a great deal of people, as they feel that it is "unfair" that he should arrive sooner than them at his destination and they should have to wait.  In reality, I submit that he is "earning" his early arrival by assuming a litany of potential consequences. These include expensive traffic tickets, or simply being splattered all over the pavement.  This avenue of "unfairness" is available to everyone but most choose not to assume that risk- a choice on both sides of the issue.

While none of this really affects the issue of whether to "tell" on someone who is cheating (still your choice on whether to bring the risk of their venture down upon them), to me it raises some interesting considerations as to the ethics of cheating in a capitalistic society.  I would argue that cheating is neither just nor injust- simply a different way of playing the game.  Likewise, getting caught is neither just nor injust, but merely the laws of probability paying a visit to someone who made a lofty gamble. Much like with short-term winners at poker, those laws of probability seemingly would assure that someone who makes a lifestyle of cheating will get caught eventually.  A gamble that they choose and a consequence that they will have to live with.