Sitting in a classroom during an exam, one usually sees two things: the well-prepared who are hurriedly completing their exams, and those who, for unfortunate reasons, are unprepared and hurriedly peeking over shoulders in an attempt to salvage their pride. At my university, the student peeking and the student allowing the peeking are threatened with severe consequences. Ofcourse, the student allowing the peeking can always feign ignorance and escape; how, ever the student doing the peeking has no last resort if he/ she is caught. With this example in mind, and a thought-provoking conversation in fresh light, the student allowing the peeking should never be punished. Here is why: if the student is allowing the peeking, he/ she must be well prepared for the exam. For the sake of assumption, even if he/ she wasn't then it would not make any difference showing an empty answer paper to his/ her classmates. I do not deny the unethical behavior of both the students, yet the student doing the offering is not doing anything wrong in my opinion. He/ she is merely leaving his/ her answer sheet open for copying either via bad posture, or some other imaginable means.
I bring this up due to the recent controversies surrounding the production of the TATA Nano. Many arguments against thte production of the Nano have been put forth, not the least of which include congestion on the roads. Other reasons include increased consumption of oil and oil products, reduced impetus for alternative energy and so forth. For the uniniated, the Nano is a small car, at an affordable price of 100,000 INR (2000 USD). Obviously aimed at the common man, the Nano is intended to replace two wheelers, and possibly three wheelers. However, people who previously could not buy a car, or had to wait X number of years to save up will now gleefully welcome the Nano; the very same people who frown upon the production of this vehicle due to several reasons.
It is a situation, analagous to the classroom scenario presented in the aforementioned paragraph. Production of the Nano is again unethical and narrow in its range of interests. Someone is offering an unethical means of obtaining an end goal (buying a car), and the consumer is faced with the seemingly impossible choice of passing up on personal pleasure in favor of higher purposes. The person offering the service or product is merely making use of his assets (knowledge, money, machinery etc.). The onus of ethics should rest upon the person making the conscious decision to purchase the Nano, or the student making the conscious decision to cast his wandering eyes on another's solutions. What I am then interpreting from conversation and introspection is this: The person making the offering is not at fault, the person accepting the offering is the one at (greater) fault. The student glancing over shoulders, the consumer buying the Nano, the police officer accepting the bribe deserve a heavier for of punishment then the party on the other side.
However, as much as I would like to call this a universal truth, I am still struggling to cement it. As long as the person is not forced to purchase anything, or forced by another to cheat in an examination, it seems that the individual who accepts the offering should be punished more severely than the one making the offering... right?
I bring this up due to the recent controversies surrounding the production of the TATA Nano. Many arguments against thte production of the Nano have been put forth, not the least of which include congestion on the roads. Other reasons include increased consumption of oil and oil products, reduced impetus for alternative energy and so forth. For the uniniated, the Nano is a small car, at an affordable price of 100,000 INR (2000 USD). Obviously aimed at the common man, the Nano is intended to replace two wheelers, and possibly three wheelers. However, people who previously could not buy a car, or had to wait X number of years to save up will now gleefully welcome the Nano; the very same people who frown upon the production of this vehicle due to several reasons.
It is a situation, analagous to the classroom scenario presented in the aforementioned paragraph. Production of the Nano is again unethical and narrow in its range of interests. Someone is offering an unethical means of obtaining an end goal (buying a car), and the consumer is faced with the seemingly impossible choice of passing up on personal pleasure in favor of higher purposes. The person offering the service or product is merely making use of his assets (knowledge, money, machinery etc.). The onus of ethics should rest upon the person making the conscious decision to purchase the Nano, or the student making the conscious decision to cast his wandering eyes on another's solutions. What I am then interpreting from conversation and introspection is this: The person making the offering is not at fault, the person accepting the offering is the one at (greater) fault. The student glancing over shoulders, the consumer buying the Nano, the police officer accepting the bribe deserve a heavier for of punishment then the party on the other side.
However, as much as I would like to call this a universal truth, I am still struggling to cement it. As long as the person is not forced to purchase anything, or forced by another to cheat in an examination, it seems that the individual who accepts the offering should be punished more severely than the one making the offering... right?
No comments:
Post a Comment