The Haidt article (Emotional dog and its rational tail) makes the argument that much of what we see as moral judgment is just a gut reaction or instinct we have, followed by some post-hoc rationalization.
Take the following situation:
I’m taking a course in Human Biology and we had to transition to an online format. Before the transition to online, I was already struggling and was barely pulling a C. The shift has me rattled. We have a final exam and I’m in the process of taking it, but I don’t even remember half of this content being covered in the book or the lecture. While taking the exam, I right click on a question (yes in this hypothetical situation, right click hasn’t been disabled) and google it. I am then led to a Quizlet that has basically every question on the exam and the answers.
Now I’m faced with a dilemma, do I use the content that is available? Why or why not (this is not meant to be a judgment question for the class and I hope some of you try to make the argument for why its ok- this is a legit ethical dilemma that most students will face)? Use at least two different moral theories to argue why this is an acceptable or unacceptable action.
Suppose I can guarantee that no one catches me (the instructor hasn’t turned on the setting that allows them to see the number of times you click off the screen and where you go- yes this is an option on canvas) AND there will be no curve on the exam, so there’s no world where I am hurting other students by ruining a curve. Does this change your answer? Why or why not (again, justify with at least one moral theory)?