Is Ignorance Ever An Excuse?

Vanderbilt University upholds a strict honor code, which is designed to foster and promote a sense of honesty and integrity among the entire student body. The well-established Undergraduate Honor Council focuses on ensuring that students are following the honor code and acting appropriately in regards to all their work. If a student’s behavior seems suspicious to a professor or another student, a violation will be reported to the Honor Council, and the Honor Council will then take several steps of investigation to determine the punishment. For example, if a professor finds that a student plagiarized on a paper, the professor can report the violation to the Honor Council, and the Honor Council will investigate the situation, speak with all relevant parties, and attempt to determine a fair punishment for the violation.

Now, although most of us are aware of what constitutes plagiarism, let us take an example where a student paraphrased in his/her paper and truly did not know that he/she was plagiarizing. In this case, should the student’s ignorance be an excuse for his/her violation, or should the Honor Council go about the normal process and punish the student with the same punishment as other cases of plagiarism? Ultimately, there are various factors that must be considered such as the nature of the plagiarized work, the amount that was plagiarized, the level of premeditation, etc. Once these factors are considered, it is easier for the Honor Council to determine a fair punishment. With that said, one of the main points made by the Honor Council is that ignorance is never an excuse. Therefore, even if a student was unaware that he/she was plagiarizing, if the student was caught, the violation is treated as a violation, and ignorance should not be an excuse. I believe the Honor Council does not allow for ignorance to be an excuse because it would allow for most students to be dishonest and plead innocence based on ignorance. If this were constantly occurring than the overall goal of the Honor Council in promoting honesty and integrity on campus would be threatened. Thus, I do understand why ignorance as an excuse is not really valued, however, should the student be held responsible even if he/she truly did not realize the violation of the honor code? In the end, the Honor Council would argue that it is up to each student to understand and fully comprehend the honor code so that instances like these do not occur.  

Let us now consider a different example where ignorance is used as an excuse and determine whether or not the individual should be held morally and/or legally responsible. Let’s say that you are the bartender at a hip restaurant in downtown Nashville where there are a ton of underage cute girls trying to buy drinks from you without their licenses. You begin to flirt with these girls and want nothing more than to allow them to buy drinks from you, despite the fact that you do not know their ages. When you ask them their birthdays, they hesitate before answering the question, providing you with some indication that they are underage. With that said, based on the information they provide you, they are legally allowed to drink, and as a result, you allow them to buy the drinks they wish. In this case, would the bartender be morally and legally responsible for his actions? Ultimately, the bartender could claim that he “did not know that they were underage,” even if he was given reason to believe that they were underage. In this scenario vs. the student at Vanderbilt, it seems fair to argue that the bartender should be held responsible because he should never allow individuals to purchase drinks if they do not have their licenses and their ages seems unclear. While the bartender would plead ignorance as an excuse, it is clear he was guilty for his actions and he acted inappropriately.

Evidently, all cases are different, and to me, it does not seem right to argue that ignorance is never an excuse. Although I do understand why strict liability laws are in place because they ensure that the guilty are always being punished for their violations, it seems that we are penalizing too many innocent individuals by upholding such strict policies.  

 

Moral Obligation to Follow Law as a Matter of Discretion

For the most part, I do not believe that we are obligated to follow the law all the time. To be clear, I do not think we should take it upon ourselves to run amok, ignoring traffic lights and following whichever laws suit our whims at the moment. After all, laws allow us to coexist in large societies by maintaining the optimum amount of freedom for each individual while protecting each person’s respective rights. Laws against murdering, stealing, and other morally reprehensible actions should, in my opinion, be obeyed in all but the most extenuating circumstances because they cause direct and lasting harm to another party. However, other laws such as drinking laws and customs laws allow more leeway as far as obligatory obedience goes. I believe that these types of laws should be viewed in a more negotiable light, because many people are capable of using their discretion to determine what is and what is not appropriate under the law.

For instance, I know plenty of twenty year olds who know how to drink responsibly. The people I have in mind consume alcohol, but in a very cautious manner, including taking precautions to keep themselves and others out of harm’s way. They call cabs so that they do not have to drink and drive, alternate non-alcoholic drinks with alcoholic ones to ensure they are at a healthy blood-alcohol level, and only consume alcohol occasionally as opposed to binge-drinking. I would argue that these underage drinkers would be much safer and more pleasant to encounter than a person who recently turned twenty one and decides to have a night out on the town and consume copious amounts of alcohol just to commemorate such a special day. It seems to me that a responsible adult who has not yet turned the appointed age of twenty one would not be morally obligated to obey such a general law that was probably developed to place limits on the actions of a large population comprised of different beliefs and backgrounds, rather than the arguable exceptions of responsible parties. This concept is reflected in the fact that in Texas, a minor may consume alcohol as long as they are in the presence of their parent(s) or guardian. Clearly, this demonstrates the spirit of the law being one more of who will claim responsibility than anything else.

Another example is that of obeying customs laws. While I have addressed this topic in other work, I want to bring it up again here because I think it illustrates a good point about obligatory obedience of the law. For example, I was traveling around Argentina the summer after my senior year in high school on a choir trip, when we stopped in a small indigenous village. While we were there, we bought different trinkets from native artisans. Among other small items like jewelry, I bought a small bow and arrow set (the decorative type that could not possibly function as a weapon) that was about eight inches long. I had not thought at the time that bringing it back into the United States would pose a problem. For all intensive purposes, it was serving the same practical function as a necklace or earring.  I would not be wielding it or using it to threaten anyone. I wondered why I even “had” to declare my item. I never, to my knowledge, signed any form or gave any verbal agreement that I would do so. What harm was I doing myself, our country, or anyone else by bringing a toy bow and arrow set into the country where it would sit in my room as a precious reminder of an amazing experience? Furthermore, this was not a case of bringing a dangerous food or invasive species of plant into the country. It actually would not hurt anything.

In cases like these, I think that it should be left up to the discretion of responsible, informed, and well-meaning citizens to decide whether or not they decide to follow the law if it will not be to the detriment of anyone else.

Does Underage Drinking Imply A Moral Wrongdoing?

In the United States today, the legal drinking age is 21 years old. With that said, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, there are approximately 10.8 million underage drinkers in the United States and 70% of young people engage in binge drinking by the ages of 19 and 20 (EdgarSnyder.com). Additionally, from the age of 13 to the age of 21, the number of individuals who admit to binge drinking increases from about 1% to 50% (EdgarSnyder.com). Evidently, the number of individuals who engage in drinking illegally is incredibly high, which forces us to question whether or not we have a standing moral obligation to obey the law. If it is the case that we are morally obligated to follow the law, why is underage drinking so prevalent in our society and furthermore, who is to blame for the large number of legal violations?

            In a CNN report, Allison Gilbert explores the idea of underage drinking and whether there is ever a time it is okay. According to the U.S. government, underage drinking is never acceptable, however, on average, most parents and college students feel quite differently. Even at Vanderbilt, where the staff and faculty are focused on the health and safety of the student body, underage drinking is exceptionally prevalent. Despite ongoing efforts to minimize underage drinking on campus, many students admit to underage drinking at not only off campus events, but Vanderbilt sponsored events as well. Furthermore, students admit to drinking under age without feeling a sense of moral wrongdoing. Should students feel guilty about drinking underage? Is the legal violation of drinking underage a moral problem in our society?

            Ultimately, stating that an individual has violated the law does not automatically indicate that the individual has acted immorally. While our legal system does exist to maintain a sense of moral order and ensure security in society, there are definitely some instances where illegality does not necessarily assume immorality. However, is underage drinking one of these instances? According to the NIAAA, “every year nearly 2,000 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related injuries” (Gilbert). After reading this statistic and understanding the severe consequences of underage drinking, should we judge illegally drinking as a moral problem?

Suppose for a minute that you get a parking ticket for not putting enough money in a metered spot. Your parking ticket is a sign that you have violated the law, however, if you truly forgot about your meter while at dinner with friends, have you acted immorally? Undoubtedly, most would argue no, which is why it is fair to state that not all legal violations are moral wrongdoings. In this instance with the parking ticket, no one was hurt and there were no severe consequences of leaving your car parked in the spot for a longer amount of time. Nonetheless, in regards to underage drinking, there are constantly reports demonstrating the consequences, whether they are severe injuries or fatalities. If the consequences are so great, would it not be fair to argue that underage drinking is a moral problem in our society because so many lives are being threatened or harmed? Perhaps those who engage in underage drinking do not view their actions as immoral simply because the consequences are not considered. Whether or not you support the amount of drinking that occurs on college campuses, it is fairly obvious that part of the college culture is drinking and partying. As a result, it is inevitable that underage drinking will exist, and since students themselves do not think about the greater harm of their actions, to them, they have not acted immorally. With that said, perhaps students and parents would feel differently about underage drinking after thinking about the greater picture of the unlawful act.

In the end, it is apparent that there are many situations in our society where it is questionable as to whether or not a legal violation is automatically a moral wrongdoing. In the case with underage drinking, it seems that drinking illegally is a moral wrongdoing in the sense that so many people are being harmed. However, just like the parking ticket example, many people do not think about the greater consequences of drinking underage and engage in illegal drinking simply because it is a part of the college culture, and in this instance, it does not seem that violating the law is directly correlated with a moral wrongdoing. Nonetheless, individuals should be wary of violating laws even if they seem trivial because although some instances clearly exhibit that illegality does not mean immorality, our legal system’s overall goal is to keep all citizens secure and maintain order. Therefore, even the most inconsequential unlawful act can lead to greater harm if too many people start to think in that way, which ultimately, is dangerous for our society as a whole. 

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/underage-drinking/underage-statistics.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/02/living/labor-day-underage-drinking/index.html