If you have not yet started to cheat, you are not trying your hardest. Honesty and following the rules are very nice ideals, but depending upon what you are trying to accomplish they could also be immoral.
If a man with a gun asks you where to find XXXX with anger in his eyes it is probably for the best if you point in the wrong direction, especially if you know where his intended target is. There are many other examples of ‘white lies’ that serve a purpose greater than the one betrayed by the falsehood. As an intelligent being you are responsible for the RESULTS of your actions, and can be forgiven for the means that are required to reach an end. That, of course, assumes that the relative value of each different goal supports your decision.
Lies are often the lubricant that allows humans to reach agreement. Throughout human history people with strong ideals have conflicted with each other. War is always a horrible outcome. Diplomacy is an art of compromise that includes any form of cheating and lying to avoid it. Telling an enemy that you have no love for that you do, making agreements that you hope to never be called upon to fulfill, and concealing your true intent all have helped avoid bloodshed.
Once a war is in progress anything less than total effort is the same as wasting soldiers’ lives. History is written by the victors, and only the losers complain about cheating. Absolute and decisive action is almost always the most humane course once violence has begun.
There is no tactic in the real world that can be called cheating. Cheating is only applicable to artificial situations or games. School is exactly such a situation. On a test the rules of the game may forbid computer, calculators, or reference materials. Once you start solving problems in the real world these are tools not cheating. A lawyer is not responsible to uphold the law except in theory. He is responsible to win for his client using whatever tactics are possible.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I agree with you on some of the things you wrote; however, cheating on tests and quizzes to become an honors student is wrong because in order to become an honors student, you must work extremely hard to receive that title.
Furthermore, why I mentioned that reason is because when I was in grammar school, most of my classmates cheated on tests and quizzes to receive academic honors.
Marvelous post.
"There is no tactic in the real world that can be called cheating. "
Plagiarism? Seems that misrepresenting yourself is cheating.
Circumventing the system? ODB was making all kinds of money on album sales, yet still collected welfare checks.
Stealing? Taking what does not belong to you, you're not following the rules of trade.
I understand the scope of what you are writing here, but that is such a general statement. Crime is one of the greatest forms of cheating. Unfortunately we live in a country and a world that condones real world lying and cheating, by ignoring it and participating in it and decreeing that it is a valid way to conduct business.
Plagiarism? Most of the situations such as, school or progressiveU scholarship contest are games. In the real world (writing for money) the act would be theft rather than cheating. If there was nothing but communication intended such as in a private letter the act of quoting another with out citing a source wouldn't IMHO be cheating.
Circumventing the system? Your example would be theft. Other examples that I can think of are well rewarded by the free enterprise system and are generally inventiveness, or 'thinking outside of the box.'
Stealing? is really what all three examples boil down to. Stealing is wrong. It is not the only, or ultimate wrong. Property rights such as copy rights are very abstract. For example they originally lasted 15 years then expired, this was extended to 28, then 21 with a 14 year extension possible when it became legal to sell that right. The extension period became 28 then in 1976 it became for the life of the author and 50 years after the author's death. As ludicrous as that might seem to anyone but a copyright holding company, they pushed it further in 1998 to extend as long as 95 years after the artist or author is dead. So a little plagiarism is a relative thing.
Theft is wrong, but not under any circumstances, or exactly as any rule defines it. Some rules are enacted in evil ways. Are you familiar with civil disobedience?
It is interesting that you should mention welfare. Welfare and its rules destroyed families. A family could not receive the check if a father was present, since minority unemployment ran from 35% to 50% during most of the early years the check was almost a necessity. In many cases an unemployed father had to choose between leaving (or cheating by pretending he had) his family, and letting children go hungry.
I am in no way supporting immoral, or even amoral acts. I am just telling you that a rule against doing what is needed does not relieve a person of responsibility for the results of their acts or lack of action.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
I see. You're saying cheating and other things along that line is like the concept of survival of the fittest? I can just kill and rob some people's houses so I can cheat my way to wealth. It's not cheating, right? It's want I have to do for survival.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
I suppose you could pretend I said anything.
"As an intelligent being you are responsible for the RESULTS of your actions, and can be forgiven for the means that are required to reach an end. That, of course, assumes that the relative value of each different goal supports your decision. "
Now, if your highest ideal value was "I can cheat my way to wealth." then of course it would be justified in your mind. I would like to point out that if you became that much of a hindrance to other peoples happiness it might have consequences. On the other hand I could also point out some people that have done at least some of what you suggest with great success.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde