Read {{`text`}} as markdown
```text
In the scenario of the GE 1109 - Ethics final exams, I face a moral dilemma where accepting my classmate's offer to cheat would guarantee passing the course (a good outcome based on Non-Academic Policy 37 in the AdDU Student Handbook (2023), which requires a passing grade to remain on a varsity team), but it violates the University's definition of academic misconduct, specifically cheating as defined in Section 22.1 of the AdDU Student Handbook (2023) (a wrong action). Conversely, rejecting the offer upholds academic integrity (the right action) but risks failing the course and potentially losing my spot on the varsity team (a bad outcome). There are three possible sequences of events: accept offer, not caught, pass: I accept the offer, successfully cheat without being caught, pass the exam and the course, and remain on the varsity team. This achieves the good outcome through a wrong action. Accept offer, caught, fail: I accept the offer, get caught cheating, fail the exam and the course, and potentially lose my spot on the varsity team. This leads to the bad outcome as a consequence of the wrong action and its discovery. Reject offer, fail: I reject the offer, struggle with the exam, fail the exam and the course, and potentially lose my spot on the varsity team. This results in the bad outcome despite taking the right action. This dilemma forces me to choose between upholding academic integrity (right action) despite the risk of a negative consequence, or prioritizing a desirable outcome (good outcome) by compromising my ethical values.

Resolving the Moral Dilemma with Utilitarian Ethics: The Case of the Leaked Exam
Moral Dilemma Scenario: I am a student in GE 1109 - Ethics, facing a final exam that I am not well-prepared for. A classmate offers me the opportunity to copy the exam answers, guaranteeing a passing grade. I must decide whether to accept or reject this offer, knowing that either choice will have significant consequences.

Actions and Consequences:

Accepting the offer:

Potential positive consequence: I pass the exam and the course.

Potential negative consequence: I get caught cheating, resulting in failing the course and suspension. My classmate also faces similar consequences.

Rejecting the offer:

Potential consequence: I likely fail the exam and the course, disappointing myself and my parents.

Affected Parties and How They Are Affected:

Myself: My academic standing, future prospects, emotional well-being, and sense of integrity are directly affected by my decision.

My Parents: My academic success impacts their happiness and pride. My decision could affect their trust in me.

Classmate who offered answers: Their academic future and well-being are at stake, depending on whether I accept the offer and whether we get caught.

Classmate's Parents: Their child's success and well-being affect their happiness. They might experience disappointment and anger if their child is caught cheating.

Exam Proctor: Their professional reputation and responsibility are at stake if cheating occurs during the exam.

Other Classmates: The fairness of the exam and the value of their own efforts are undermined if cheating takes place.

Net Satisfaction Ratings per Affected Party (Scale: -5 to +5):

Affected Party	Accepting Offer	Rejecting Offer
Myself	+2.5	-1
My Parents (each)	+1	-0.5
Classmate Offering Answers	+3	+1.5
Classmate's Parents (each)	+0.5	+1
Exam Proctor	-4	+2
Other Classmates (each)	+1.2	+0.4
Utilitarian Resolution and Justification:

Utilitarianism, as articulated by John Stuart Mill, advocates for the greatest happiness principle. This principle dictates that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. We determine this by calculating the net satisfaction for each action and choosing the action with the highest overall net satisfaction.

Calculating Net Satisfaction:

Accepting the offer:

Myself: +2.5

Parents (total): +2.0

Classmate offering: +3

Classmate's parents (total): +1.0

Exam Proctor: -4

Other classmates (total): +51.6 (43 x 1.2)

Total Net Satisfaction: +56.1

Rejecting the offer:

Myself: -1

Parents (total): -1.0

Classmate offering: +1.5

Classmate's parents (total): +2.0

Exam Proctor: +2

Other classmates (total): +17.2 (43 x 0.4)

Total Net Satisfaction: +20.7

Conclusion:

Based on the utilitarian analysis, accepting the classmate's offer to copy the exam answers yields a significantly higher net satisfaction (+56.1) compared to rejecting the offer (+20.7). Therefore, according to the greatest happiness principle, the utilitarian resolution to this moral dilemma is to accept the classmate's offer.

While this conclusion may seem counterintuitive to some ethical perspectives that prioritize honesty and integrity, utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall happiness. In this scenario, the potential benefits of passing the exam and the course for myself and my classmate, along with the minimal impact on other classmates, outweigh the negative consequences of cheating and the potential harm to the exam proctor's reputation.

It is crucial to acknowledge that this utilitarian analysis relies on subjective estimations of satisfaction and probability. Different individuals might assign different values, leading to a different conclusion. However, based on the provided estimations, utilitarianism clearly favors accepting the offer as the course of action that maximizes overall happiness.

In resolving right vs. good moral dilemmas, Deontological ethics is a moral theory that prioritizes principles over benefits. The chief characteristic of deontological theories is: 
(moral) right (one's duty, how one should act) is defined independently of (moral) good. Deontological theories necessarily generate "categorical imperatives" (that is, duties independent of any theory of good)
.

When deciding on a course of action from a deontological perspective, the duties independent of any theory of good (categorical imperatives) have to be generated. The third step offers at least three ways to test an act to see whether it is morally permissible.

[1] The Universalizability Test, also called the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature, requires us to "
act only on those maxims one can will to be universal laws
" (Davis, 2001). For this test, what needs to be done is to "
consider whether (assuming the world otherwise remains as you believe it to be) you could still achieve that end in the way you propose if everyone were permitted to act the same whenever they had the same end in view
" (Davis, 2001).



[2] The Disclosure Test, also called the Humanity Formula, requires us to "
act only on those maxims consistent with treating each person as an end, not merely as a means
" (Davis, 2001). For this test, what needs to be done is to "
consider whether (assuming the world otherwise remains as you believe it to be) you could still achieve that end in the way you propose if everyone knew you were permitted to act as you propose
" (Davis, 2001).


[3] The Moral Legislation Test, also called the Autonomy Formula, requires us to "
act only on those maxims that all rational persons could adopt as universal rules governing all
" (Davis, 2001). For this test, what needs to be done is to "
consider whether (assuming the world otherwise remains as you believe it to be) you could still achieve that end in the way you propose if your doing so required every rational person to approve a general rule permitting actions of that kind
" (Davis, 2001).
```

In one paragraph, demonstrate how deontological ethics guides the resolution of the moral dilemma. Begin with the actions and their motives in the moral dilemma scenario. Given the actions and their motives, summarize each action's performance in terms of the three deontological tests. Conclude with the deontological resolution and its appropriate justification.