The Ethics of Plagiarism

Much as been made of “the plagiarism problem” and numerous studies and university websites show plagiarism, especially in the internet age, to be very widespread and commonplace. Everywhere you turn someone seems to have an idea about how to stop plagiarism, but is plagiarism really even wrong to begin with? With plagiarism being so common, despite such strong opposition, the question of whether there is a problem in the first place begs to be asked.

The case against plagiarism

On the more common side you have those who find plagiarism to be wrong for no reasons at all to those who blame it for everything. However, most often, their arguments can be summed as follows:Plagiarism is dishonest, stealing, unfair, disrespectful, and harmful. Harmful, in that plagiarizing can ruin the reputation of both the plagiarist and the institution or organization that supports or awards them; disrespectful, in that plagiarism can betray the trust of those that employ the plagiarist, their associates, or even their readers; unfair, in that the plagiarist is graded or awarded for work that was not submitted along the same rules as the other students or participants; stealing, in that the work is a theft of another’s ideas; and dishonest, as the plagiarist claims something to be one thing when it is another thing altogether (Blaiklock 1).

Further, the argument is made, that plagiarism is, itself, a crime, punishable by law and enforceable by the state or through its agents. Consider the following in regards to plagiarism being theft, “But can words and ideas really be stolen? According to U.S. law, the answer is yes” (“What Is Plagiarism” 1). Or this as well, “Stealing is a crime. Although it is easy to identify when someone is stealing money…stealing words…can be harder to recognize. This type of stealing is called plagiarism” (Girard 1).

The case that the problem is exaggerated

Given this information, one can easily see why plagiarism is considered such a big deal and so commonly disparaged. How can anyone argue against such strong points?

Believe it or not, there are those that argue that the plagiarism problem is greatly exaggerated. Exaggerated, not in how many people regularly plagiarize, but exaggerated in its effects and what plagiarism is to begin with.

Economist and author Gary North’s take is that plagiarism is more of a vice than a crime as the act is morally repugnant, but no person or property is being harmed by the act:

“Plagiarism reveals the thief as lazy. He just cannot think for himself. He does not push ideas around in his mind and evaluate them. He just steals. Is this a moral evil? Yes. It’s right up there with … well, I can’t think what it’s up there with. So, I guess it’s more down there than up there. The victim does not lose any money. He gets his idea passed on in its original form without any additions or subtractions. Wasn’t that the whole idea? (Sorry; I couldn’t resist.) What’s the problem? Plagiarism is a lazy person’s sin. Ideas do not mean much to him, so he lifts them from others. Writing style surely means little to him. He probably is not very creative intellectually. He is presumably competent, but he is no giant. What does it matter that he stole a phrase here or there? Economically, this is irrelevant. Morally, it is marginal” (North 1)

The guild control argument

North concludes his thoughts on plagiarism by focusing on the world of academia in particular and their role in enforcing rules against plagiarism:

“Sanctions against plagiarism are part of a system of academic guild control. As with most guilds, the screening process applies mainly in the in the journeymen phase. Sanctions are a matter of screening…For your plagiarism to harm another person, you both must be involved in a zero-sum contest: one person’s gain comes at the expense of another person’s loss. This is a fixed-pie environment. This indicates the existence of system-imposed barriers to entry to restrict supply. In most cases, a guild’s barrier to entry is enforced by the State. Its members are using State coercion to restrict the supply of future competitors in order to increase their own income. This does not place a guild on the high moral ground. Compared to the use of State power to restrict entry, plagiarism is a minor offense” (1)

The scarcity of ideas

Most important to the discussion on plagiarism though is the value of ideas, “there’s nothing sacrosanct about ideas and those ideas put into words. I have ideas, you have ideas, we all have ideas. A lot of ideas overlap. It doesn’t mean one stole one idea from another, [ideas] just aren’t scarce. The law of supply and demand holds here as much as anywhere else” (Brickner 1).

Conclusion

So, while those that argue that plagiarism is a problem are correct. The problem, however, is grossly exaggerated from what that problem is – laziness and protectionism – into what that problem isn’t – harmful and criminal – and everyone would be do well to take a deeper look at this issue that is just taken for granted. Even the fact that an author reusing one of their own earlier ideas is considered plagiarism demonstrates that the enforcement of plagiarism isn’t about the originality of the ideas, but about protecting those safe inside the system from competition from those trying to make their way into, or through, the system.