Speaker 1: 0:02

Welcome to what Should we Do, a weekly podcast about the moral dilemmas we all face, big and small. Join your co-hosts, zoe and Briggs, as they dive into everything from AI and automation to awkward dinner debates and workplace drama, with timely stories and no easy answers, this is the show for anyone trying to live a little more consciously in a complicated world. Whether you're a parent, navigating today's shifting social expectations, dealing with workplace bureaucracy or facing tough calls in personal relationships, this podcast is here to help. Each episode explores real-world scenarios that challenge our moral compass and help us grow as individuals, co-workers, friends and citizens. New episodes every week. Bring your brain, bring your values. Let's figure it out together.

Speaker 2: 0:55

Welcome to the Deep Dive. You know you've brought us some really thought-provoking stuff today. It seems like a small ethical situation, but wow, it really opens up some big questions.

Speaker 3: 1:07

Absolutely. We're digging into this whole issue of well fudging volunteer hours for things like awards or recognition, and you know how these seemingly minor ethical compromises, you know, can actually snowball.

Speaker 2: 1:22

Yeah, snowball is a good word for it. We've got this article that really picks apart the dilemma, gives some real world examples, even historical ones, right, and there's this visual too. It's quite striking. You have this character almost Pinocchio-like, with a long nose holding an Honor Society volunteer certificate and next to him a younger person with a trophy, looking like they actually earned it and college, sort of looming in the background.

Speaker 3: 1:49

It really does capture that tension, doesn't it? That conflict between getting ahead, that appearance of success, and the actual integrity behind it.

Speaker 2: 1:57

Exactly so. Our mission today really is to get under the skin of this, understand the different angles, look at the potential long-term fallout.

Speaker 3: 2:07

And what it tells us about character, about honesty, maybe even about the kind of leaders we're shaping for the future.

Speaker 2: 2:14

Oh, let's dive right in. Here's a question for you, listening have you ever been in a spot where maybe a tiny shortcut looked really tempting, like the quickest way to get something you wanted? Because that's exactly the kind of situation we're exploring today.

Speaker 3: 2:29

Specifically this choice about volunteer hours, inflating them or maybe just making them up for something like the National Honor Society.

Speaker 2: 2:38

And the core conflict is pretty clear. Right, do you sign that form? Maybe help out a kid, even though the hours aren't real.

Speaker 3: 2:46

Or do you hold the line, uphold those ethical standards, even if it means that kid misses out on that specific recognition?

Speaker 2: 2:53

And it can feel like such a small thing, can't it Just a little favor, a signature. What's the real harm? That's what the article really gets at.

Speaker 3: 3:03

The thought that it's kind of harmless. But as soon as you scratch the surface, you hit these really fundamental values. Like what specifically? Well, truthfulness, obviously, but also justice, fairness, integrity, accountability. These aren't just abstract ideas. They're crucial for trust.

Speaker 2: 3:23

So a key takeaway right there even these little ethical slips can chip away at those big foundational values, definitely Okay. So let's break down the actual wrongs here. The article lays out several points, starting with the most obvious one lying and fraud.

Speaker 3: 3:39

Exactly Sign in that form. Knowing it's false isn't just bending the truth, it's intentional deception, plain and simple. It violates that basic moral value of truthfulness.

Speaker 2: 3:52

Right If we can't trust what people say or sign off on.

Speaker 3: 3:57

Things start to break down pretty quickly and it goes beyond just lying, as you said. It's actually fraud.

Speaker 2: 4:02

Okay, explain that fraud part a bit more. How does it qualify as fraud?

Speaker 3: 4:07

Well, fraud is basically misrepresenting facts on purpose to get something valuable. In this case, the valuable thing is getting into the honor society.

Speaker 2: 4:14

Ah, okay.

Speaker 3: 4:14

So by faking the hours, someone is trying to gain an advantage they didn't actually earn, and that immediately raises the issue of fairness, or rather unfairness.

Speaker 2: 4:27

Unfairness. To who, though, is there a direct victim?

Speaker 3: 4:29

Absolutely so. Think about the students who did put in the time, who genuinely volunteered for all those required hours. When someone else gets the same recognition by cheating the system, it diminishes the value of the honest student's work. It's unjust.

Speaker 2: 4:47

So another takeaway it's not victimless. It really does hurt the people who play by the rules.

Speaker 3: 4:53

Precisely. It undermines their effort and the whole idea of merit.

Speaker 2: 4:58

It makes me think of that Operation Varsity Blues scandal. The article brought up Totally different scale, obviously, but the core principle is similar, isn't it? That scandal really threw a spotlight on how much society claims to value fairness and authentic achievement over just buying your way in or manipulating the system.

Speaker 3: 5:18

Yeah, good point. You know the article also talks about complicity. Even if you didn't suggest faking the hours, just agreeing to sign the form makes you part of it.

Speaker 2: 5:28

That's right. Being complicit in deception means you share the moral responsibility. It's not like you get a pass because you didn't come up with the idea.

Speaker 3: 5:35

So signing that false form is like being a knowing accomplice.

Speaker 2: 5:38

Essentially yes. The article compares it to knowingly signing a false affidavit in court. You're actively participating in the falsehood.

Speaker 3: 5:46

There's an impact on the award itself, like the National Honor Society. If people are getting in dishonestly, what does that membership even mean anymore?

Speaker 2: 5:54

Exactly, it erodes the value of the recognition. If the standards are compromised, the honor becomes well less honorable, meaningless almost.

Speaker 3: 6:04

And the students who earned it legitimately.

Speaker 2: 6:07

They're robbed of the true value of their achievement. Plus, it damages trust in the institutions themselves. If you can't trust the selection process, the whole thing loses credibility. Okay.

Speaker 3: 6:21

But I think the point that hit me hardest in the article was about the lesson this teaches the young person involved. That seems critical.

Speaker 2: 6:30

I completely agree. This might be the most important consequence. Really, what message are we actually sending when we, as adults, signal that getting in or looking good is more important than how you got there? The article argues it teaches some really dangerous lessons.

Speaker 3: 6:51

Like what are those lessons?

Speaker 2: 6:52

That image trumps reality. That success matters more than integrity. That it's okay to be dishonest if it gets you what you want. The article suggests this can lead to a pattern ethical decay.

Speaker 3: 7:06

It's a real risk. This kind of thinking can make it easier to justify, say, cheating on a test later, or engaging in shady business practices or just generally cutting corners whenever you think you can get away with it.

Speaker 2: 7:21

It sort of normalizes dishonesty on a small scale, which could lead to bigger things.

Speaker 3: 7:26

Precisely, and that Enron example in the article is pretty chilling. You know there's a Right.

Speaker 2: 7:30

The whole culture was about hitting targets, no matter what. Yeah, and look where that led Massive fraud, total collapse. It shows how these seemingly little ethical compromises can absolutely spiral out of control, which leads directly to that concept of the slippery slope. Once you make that first compromise, that first little unethical step, it becomes psychologically easier to make the next one, maybe a slightly bigger one. You get desensitized. Exactly that single signature on a false form can start to erode your own ethical boundaries over time. Okay, so the article then brings in some ethical theories to look at this, which I found really helpful. Let's start with Kantian ethics. How does that view this right? Kantian ethics, or deontology, focuses on duties and rules. Kant had this idea of the categorical imperative, basically a rule you think everyone should follow always, and for Kant, honesty is one of those fundamental duties. It doesn't matter what the consequences are. Lying is simply wrong, full stop.

Speaker 3: 8:34

So, from a Kantian perspective, fudging the hours is never okay, no matter the reason Never.

Speaker 2: 8:40

The act itself is inherently unethical, regardless of whether it helps the kid get into the honor society or not.

Speaker 3: 8:46

Got it. What about virtue ethics, Aristotle's approach.

Speaker 2: 8:50

Virtue ethics shifts the focus. It's less about rules and more about character. What kind of person do you want to be? What virtues, like honesty and integrity, are you cultivating? Asking someone else to falsifiers is bad because it undermines the development of good character both in the adult and, crucially, in the child. It teaches them to value expediency over virtue.

Speaker 3: 9:15

And then there's consequentialism or utilitarianism, which looks at the outcomes right. This one weighs the good consequences against the bad ones, and you might think well, the good outcome is the kid gets into the honor society, which could help him later. Maybe that outweighs the small lie. That's the tempting thought.

Speaker 2: 9:33

But the article argues and I think rightly that the long-term negative consequences are actually much greater, such as we've talked about them the erosion of trust, the unfairness to others, the damage to the institution's credibility and, perhaps most importantly, the harmful lesson taught to the child about integrity.

Speaker 3: 9:56

Yeah. So even if you're just looking at results, the overall result is negative.

Speaker 2: 10:00

Exactly. The long-term harm to ethical standards and trust significantly outweighs the short-term benefit of one person getting an unearned recognition. It's interesting how all these different ethical frameworks coming from different angles basically end up in the same place on this issue.

Speaker 2: 10:18

It does suggest there's a strong ethical consensus against this kind of falsification consensus against this kind of falsification, and the article does acknowledge the justifications people might use, things like oh, it's just a small thing, or everyone does it, or everybody fudges a little right, or the big one, I'm doing it for my child's future. How does the analysis counter those points?

Speaker 3: 10:41

Well, it argues pretty forcefully that saying it's just a small thing ignores how systemic problems start. Normalizing these small unethical acts is exactly how you end up with widespread corruption or a general decline in standards. And the everyone does it argument is just well, it's a logical fallacy. Just because others might do something wrong doesn't make it right.

Speaker 2: 11:04

And for my child's future, that one's tough because the motive feels protective.

Speaker 3: 11:10

But the article stresses that modeling dishonesty teaches a terrible lesson that the ends justify the means, that integrity is negotiable if the stakes seem high enough. So even the pragmatic arguments don't really hold up under ethical scrutiny. Not really. The potential long-term damage to character and societal trust just outweighs any perceived immediate benefit.

Speaker 2: 11:35

And this ties directly into the leadership question the article raises. It asks point blank what kind of leaders are we actually developing if we teach them that appearances and shortcuts are okay?

Speaker 3: 11:47

That's such a critical question for all of us to think about. Are we building leaders who value integrity, who understand that how you achieve something matters just as much, if not more, than what you achieve?

Speaker 2: 12:03

Or are we teaching them that the only thing that matters is getting ahead, regardless of the ethical cost?

Speaker 3: 12:09

If future leaders learn early on that cutting corners is acceptable, what happens when they face much bigger ethical decisions with much higher stakes? It sets a potentially dangerous precedent.

Speaker 2: 12:23

Absolutely so. Wrapping up this deep dive, it's really clear this isn't just about volunteer hours or one certificate, is it?

Speaker 3: 12:32

Not at all. It cuts to the core of our values. Are we valuing image or substance, external recognition or internal character, getting ahead by any means or achieving things through genuine merit and hard work?

Speaker 2: 12:47

It's that choice between the easy shortcut and the sometimes harder path of integrity.

Speaker 3: 12:52

Precisely, and the article leaves us, the listeners, with some very direct questions to ponder.

Speaker 2: 12:59

Yeah, it does. First, if you were the parent, would you ask someone to falsify a document for your child? The options presented are essentially yes, I'd ask, or no, I'd use it as a teaching moment.

Speaker 3: 13:11

And then flipping it. If you were the person asked to sign, would you do it to help out or would you hold that ethical line Again? Basically a yes I'd sign or no I'd refuse.

Speaker 2: 13:21

And hold that ethical line Again, basically a yes I'd sign or no I'd refuse. And then there's that pretty blunt quote from one parent's opinion.

Speaker 3: 13:25

Do you remember it? Oh yeah, if asking someone I know to fudge a couple of volunteer hours affects my kid's ability to get into college, let's get it done. We can worry about the morality of these things later, wow.

Speaker 2: 13:36

Just like, let's get it done, worry later. Ha ha.

Speaker 3: 13:38

It's stark, isn't it? And the source asks you to rate your agreement with that statement on a scale of one to seven, from strongly disagree to strongly agree it really makes you confront your own priorities, doesn't it?

Speaker 2: 13:54

Where do you actually stand when the pressure is on?

Speaker 1: 14:00

Thanks for joining us on what Should we Do? If you enjoyed the episode, subscribe, leave a review and share it with someone who loves a good moral dilemma. Got a situation you want us to tackle? Reach out. We'd love to hear from you. Until next time, bring your brain, bring your values and let's keep figuring it out together. Bye.