Author's Introduction
- Most college professors have had to deal with plagiarised papers from their students, and my experience is no exception. The problem has long been widespread. In one anonymous survey of tens of thousands of college students in the United States and Canada, more than a third admitted to plagiarism in some form – and this was before they had access to a near-perfect method (in ChatGPT) for submitting work that is not their own.
- I recently spent several years as a dean at my university, where I oversaw the response to violations of academic integrity across the arts and science disciplines. In almost all cases of plagiarism, students gave the same defence: I didn’t mean to. They insisted it was the result of a mistake, sloppy note-taking, or misunderstanding the rules.
- The accusation of plagiarism can feel formidable. Denying intent allows one to try to sidestep the accusation. ‘Perhaps I’m guilty in some technical sense, but I’m not dishonest!’ But does a lack of intent matter? Is there really a complete lack of intent? And what does this tell us about a writer’s moral character?
Author's Conclusion
- The minority of scholars who maintain that ‘accidental’ plagiarism isn’t really plagiarism or isn’t a matter of academic integrity conflate the commission of an act with the act’s appropriate consequences or with the plagiarist’s blameworthiness. Moreover, these scholars assume a false dichotomy, where cheating is always intentional and deserving of punishment, and textual errors like sloppy paraphrasing or missing citations are always unintentional – merely matters of honest confusion.
- To care about critical thinking is to care about plagiarism. Learning to think means learning to write. The tasks of thinking and writing, appropriately pursued, require distinguishing words and ideas that you put on paper yourself from those that you get from somewhere else. When we write out our own ideas, we make an attempt to understand and impose order on a perplexing world. This is different from the also-valuable task of seeing how others do the same.
- We have to care about half-intentional plagiarism because it helps us see why plagiarism matters at all. If we are not careful about the distinction between our own words and someone else’s, then we risk losing the significance of the distinction altogether.
Author Narrative
- Philip Reed is a professor of philosophy at Canisius University in Buffalo, New York State. His scholarly interests are in ethics and moral psychology.
Notes
- I thought this was a very tricky paper, but is highly relevant to my Thesis (or at least the writing-up thereof).
- The problem is that the term 'plagiarism' (like 'murder') is a morally 'thick' concept which carries within it the presupposed condemnation of the act (and agent).
- As a commentator has pointed out, we have a separate term for 'involuntary manslaughter' where a killing is accidental. It doesn't carry the same degree of moral condemnation.
- So, I think intent does matter. Maybe not to the fact but to the ethical evaluation.
- It also depends on the context - whether financial or reputational gain is involved.
- Also, some phrases are in the public domain, and we can't cumber about all we write with attributions.
- Yes - if what we're writing is a training exercise - from coursework to a PhD Thesis, we have to follow the rules, and failure to do so shows at least incompetence in that regard. But it may not demonstrate wickedness.
- The author may be right that plagiarism is more like speeding than theft. I suppose you might steal something accidentally (say a valuable accidentally fell into your pocket), but would it then be 'stealng'? But 'speeding' comes in degrees, and while the fine may be the same - and relative to the egregiousness of the offence - the moral condemnation should respect intent. Say you didn't know the speed limit, or were speeding to a hospital (and weren't being reckless). Moral luck tends to enter into the equation as well.
- The passage on 'precises' was interesting. I do a lot of this, and when quoting a long passage include this in my bespoke colour scheme to indicate that these are not my words (usually adding paragraphing and quotation marks. But in occasional sentences I often can't be bothered as it gets distracting - both for me as a writer and for the reader. After all, the context is that I'm giving an account of someone else's thought, not my own. What I'm more usually concerned about is accidentally introducing my own thought into the account that others may mistake for the original author's.
- But ultimately, 'plagiarism' is an element of a game academics - mostly in the liberal arts - play, and those not in this game can ignore it to a degree. The same can't be said of copyright infringement, unfortunately. But that's as much a legal as moral issue, especially in musical quotations (attitudes to this have changed over time).
- A commentator accusing Descartes of plagiarising St. Augustine is anachronistic. So - I would argue - is equating 'the spoils of war' with 'looting'.
- The Comments are interesting, and I've reserved them for further consideration.
- I've tagged this paper as relevant to my Note on Thesis - Method & Form, but it might also apply to Metaphilosophy (which at least has a reading list).
Comment:
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)