Case#4: Imagine your group is part of the discipline committee, Apple a graduating student caught

plagiarizing on her thesis. Her defense was she did not know and checked her work since she is also a
working student. So, your committee convened and decided that she must be given another chance. On
the condition that she will not commit it again. Apple, I agreed it the decision. However, when Apple
submitted again her second work there are few plagiarize statements. The panel reported it again to
your committee. Under the rule, A student who committed plagiarism can face the maximum penalty of
dismissal regardless whether he/she is a graduating student. Now, your committee must have a decision
since, graduation day is fast approaching.

Ethical Theory Explained:

Virtue ethics is based on character rather than action based as it looks at the virtue or moral
character of the person carrying the action, rather than at ethical actions itself, or the consequences of
those actions. Virtue ethics not only deals with the rightness or wrongness of an individual actions, but it
also offers direction as to the sort of traits and virtues that a good person will seek to achieve. Example
of those virtues are the act of JUSTICE, where treatment to one’s self is just, act of CONSCIENTIOUS,
where an action relates to a right conscience, and act of WITTINESS, where it applies the action of being
clever about particular situations and decision-making. In sorting these virtues, there are VICES that are
needed to be avoided to pursue balance of the actions like the act of INTEMPERANCE, which as the
EXCESS of the act of TEMPERANCE, and INSENSIBILITY, which is the DEFICIENCY of the same virtue.
Overall, virtue ethics does not base its actions on its ethical rules or consequences but merely decide on
one’s character carrying the action and gives off direction for that character to achieve the traits and
virtues need to be accomplished.

Answer:

The committee should not immediately case Apple with maximum penalty, and instead,
confront her about the second time of committing and determine whether she would receive the
maximum penalty based to her reason.

Reason 1:

Confronting Apple about her second work where there’s a few plagiarize statements would be
an act of JUSTICE. By confronting her, she would have the right to explain herself for why there’s a few
plagiarize statements in her second work. And by knowing her reasons deliberately, the committee
would practice the act of being CONSCIENTIOUS especially that Apple is a graduating student. And by
that, the committee would do an act of WITTINESS as they managed to think about every factors and
reasons before deciding for the verdict.
Reason 2:

The committee should always be temperate of the situations, so following virtue ethics, they
should avoid the VICES (EXCESS) and (DEFICIENCY) of these acts. If they didn’t, expelling Apple by
sentencing her with the maximum penalty without a proper explanation of why she did such action
would be an act of INTEMPERANCE. Deciding unthoroughly about a verdict, especially for a graduating
student would be an act of INSENSIBILITY to Apple’s side. And when Apple finally explained herself, that
is when the committee has to decide whether Apple would receive the maximum penalty.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the committee should set a confrontation to Apple by letting her explain her side
of why there’s a plagiarized statements in her second work before deciding whether she gets the
penalty or not. The committee would do the act of JUSTICE and avoid the act of INSENSIBILITY by letting
her give an explanation for the action that she did. Also, they would be doing the act of WITTINESS and
avoid the act of INTEMPERANCE by thoroughly rationalizing the factors that should be considered on
deciding whether she would receive the penalty. Overall, the way they should handle, by confronting
and letting Apple explain, would be an act of being CONSCIENTIOUS as it gives both sides the right to do
what’s needed to do first before actually providing a verdict.