• this should be interesting to see people responses.

  • 2007 AAR League

    a vote for only if you get caught by someone.  :lol:

    of course, i voted for always.


  • Always.

    Im not sure what type of cheating youre talking about, the options seem to imply a number of different things called cheating.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    yes what does cheating mean? what context?

    Losing weight?

    Seeing other woman?

    Copy homework?

    Cutting in line?

    Not sending in the correct taxes?

    cutting off people in traffic?

    come on man you must be more specific.


  • USAFA Honor Oath…

    “We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does…”

    I swore that oath in 1987.  And though I have failed to maintain it 100% of the time, it is an ideal that (especially in the past 5 years) I have worked ever harder to achieve.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    According to Kant, it is immoral to do anything that:

    a)  Would cause a contradiction.
    b)  Cannot be applied universally.

    Since it would be a contradiction for everyone to cheat, as the meaning of the word would cease to exist, then it violates part a.  (If everyone cheated, then the word would not have meaning anymore, you only cheat when someone expects you to follow the rules.  Since everyone is cheating, then no one expects you to follow the rules.  If no one is expecting you to follow the rules, you cannot be breaking the rules by cheating.  Thus it contradicts itself.)

    And since no one could rationalize the statement “Everyone should cheat.”  Then it cannot be applied universally and thus, it violates part b. (If you could rationalize the statement “everyone shoult cheat” then you are violating part a which says your moral maxim should not contradict itself.  Thus you cannot rationalize the universal statement that everyone should cheat.)

    Furthermore, you cannot stack the deck by putting conditions on the moral maxim.  It’s illogical to use the argument that everyone should cheat on Tuesday in Illinois when cheating at Axis and Allies while playing as England attacking Berlin.

    So no, it is not moral to cheat at any time according to Kant’s theories of morals.

    Furthermore, utilitarians (like John Mills) would say that cheating is immoral because it does not create the greatest happiness for the greatest number.  If you are playing Axis and Allies and you cheat when you play your nation, you may create happiness for yourself, but when others find out you are cheating, in the long run, you will create less happiness for the group of 5 players as a whole then you create for yourself.  Thus you create the greatest happiness for the greatest number by not cheating.

    Furthermore, Divine Command Theory would consider cheating the same as lieing (you are lieing about what you can do and thus cheating your opponent) and that is strictly considered immoral by just about every religion on the planet and throughout antiquity.

    Finally, relativists would say that cheating is a personal opinion and that if it is moral to you then it is moral.  However, if your opponents think it’s moral to take you out back and beat you into a coma when they find out you cheated, then that’s moral too.  Since it’s nearly impossible for a person to think it is moral to be beaten into a coma, then relativists would tend to argue that cheating is also immoral when dealing with rational peopld.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I don’t think the thread has anything to do with Philosophy. Its most likely the type of cheating people do in school and the poster feels bad for doing it and this thread is a way to relieve his guilt?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Imperious:

    I don’t think the thread has anything to do with Philosophy. Its most likely the type of cheating people do in school and the poster feels bad for doing it and this thread is a way to relieve his guilt?

    Even if that’s true, it still has to do with philosophy. 😛  Everything (except Mathematics) has to do with Philosophy.  Mathematics is the only purity you can find that has nothing to do with philosophy.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    yes yes thats my thinking too, only its may not apply to the kind of cheating hes referring to because that was never elucidated. So he could have been talking about taking too many of those free pamphlets at the bank because you no longer have the gas turned on and you needed something to light up the fireplace. Thats cheating as well.

    What did Kant say about taking too many free loan applications from WAMU?

    You see it CAN be something different.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Kant would say that no rational person would be able to rationalize it if EVERYONE was to take too many applications from WAMU, free or not.  Because it would do damage to WAMU and because then there would be no free applications for others to take too many of and thus, it violates part one (by forming a contradiction) and part two (by being an irrational action.)

    Darlin, everything EXCEPT mathematics can be put in the philosophical arena.  Math is incontroversable, thus it cannot be debated on a theological standing.  No one can debate if A-squared + B-squared  = C-squared is moral or immoral. 😛

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    If WAMU produced a trillion of these fliers and the abstract of “too many” could then be relative in any event and the value you assign to cheating would have a moral relativism projected into it. Because then it would depend on the size of the company and its capacity to produce the fliers.

    So it may be possible for everybody to take many of them, but is this cheating considering it does say “free fliers”

    Cheating is a open ended definition.

    I have a masters in Philosophy BTW.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If WAMU had an infinite number of fliers that cost them nothing to produce, then the term “too many” would be a contradiction since it would no longer have the meaning people associate with the term and thus, would violate the first part of his ethical tests and thus, would STILL be immoral.

    😛


  • A great question with a poll still active from 2008!

  • Moderator 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12

    It depends.
    It is horrible when it happens to you, maybe that is why so many of us do it(first)!
    It is also easy to take the moral high ground, say you never would,  then cheat yourself.
    I have  and some of the times I regret having done so.  Others, you would do it over and over.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I love the comment “Only if you’re helping someone”.

    What if that someone - is yourself? 😉

  • Moderator 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '12

    That is what I put.
    Then proceeded to write how I have helped myself!
    Point proven Garg.


  • Just make sure to add the

    “Linkon Must Always Win”

    rule before the start of any game.

    :mrgreen:


  • in 1992,

    I have even cheated Death before.

    remember my main rule .

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

30
Online

16.2k
Users

37.9k
Topics

1.6m
Posts