I choose case 1.1 which states that; “As an instructor in the university one day while giving an in-class exam you notice one of the bright student whose father had passed away recently cheating. You know that the student has been having difficulties in concentrating on his schoolwork since then. You decide not to interrupt the student during the exams since this could humiliate him in front of the classmates. You could confront him after the exams, fail him for the test and let the matter go at that. However, the university has………………
Was I justified in not interrupting the student during the exam? Should I have humiliated the student in front of classmates? Should I have………………..
I choose Feminist theory, Aristotelian virtue ethics, and Act Utilitarianism.
Act utilitarianism judges the individuals action by concerning itself forthrightly with the consequences of a person’s action whether the actions taken by an individual will result in bringing less harm or unhappiness to the other person. It mostly considers the interests of all parties involved in the case, in this cases the parties include; the student, the mother, the instructor, and the administration. It is more likely that the student, the mother and other students will be very unhappy or affected with the action of the instructor suppose he reports the cheating to the administration, and since he knows the situation in which the student is going through the instructor himself will not be happy for his actions as well, it seems that the administration will be the only happy party. Most probably when the inspector interrupts the student during the exam, the student will feel humiliated and with his current depression situation he may lose hope in life and even become more affected in his performance due to low self-esteem…………………….