In ethics class, during a conversation about speeding tickets, a man (hereafter known as “the student”) stated that he tried to “get out of a ticket” a few days before Christmas that year. He was in a hurry to see his girlfriend and thought he could arrive at her apartment sooner by going five miles over the speed limit. Here’s what he reportedly told the peace officer (hereafter known as “the officer”) who stopped him: “I had presents in the back seat, and I saw a guy steal them. I was chasing his truck when you flagged me down.” The officer noted the student’s address, along with a description of the alleged suspect and suspect’s vehicle, and let him go. Several hours later, about 3 a.m. the next day, the officer showed up at the student’s door with a real suspect and asked the student if this was the person who stole his Christmas presents. What important ethics-related lessons, as covered in lecture and text, does this anecdote contain?

Key:
Red dot  means a wrong answer
Green dot  means a right answer
 

1.  The student got out of the ticket because he used his imagination. [Yes, it takes imagination to lie; no, that's not the ethics lesson.]

2.  He was only going five miles over the speed limit; the officer must have had a quota or stopped him because he was young and male. ["Five miles over the speed limit" is still a violation; moreover, the anecdote presents no evidence to support either the quota or gender justifications here.]

3.  Once he told the lie, he no longer owned or could control it. [You cannot control lies any more than you can control people or outcomes; the only way you can try to control those are by lying again to shore up the original falsehood.]

4.  It was Christmas; the officer should have let him go out of kindness, in the spirit of the season. [Argumentative. Perhaps, in the spirit of the season, the student should have told the truth.]

5. In the anecdote, the student reportedly tells the officer  _1.  _2.  _3.  _4.  5.  _6.  _7. lies. [Five lies: there were no presents in the back seat; he didn't see anyone steal them; he wasn't chasing the thief when the officer flagged him down; the description of the suspect was also fabricated, as was that of the suspect's "car." If you can prove otherwise--rather than speculate--do so in Question #30.]

6.  The real suspect is a criminal; hence, he deserves what’s coming to him, even if it is based on a lie. [The real suspect, brought to the student's door at 3 a.m., may or may not be a criminal--not enough evidence to decide, let alone justify, that he has "what's coming to him."]

7.  The student knew the rules of the game—when you speed, you can get caught—and so should have simply accepted the ticket. [Most ethicists cite the "rules of the game" principle as a basic ethical principle because it honors community; in other words, if you don't like the law, work to change it. Anything else is self-interest. Here, the student lies "to get out of a ticket."]

8.  The officer was justifying his quota by bringing a suspect to the student’s door. [There is no evidence whatsoever of a "quota."]

9.  The student was justifying his actions because the officer had a quota. [The student was trying to get out of a ticket; don't guess at the student's or the officer's viewpoints--which cannot be known--imagining what they are thinking at the time.]

10.  The suspect was suffering consequences of his actions because he was arrested in the early morning hours with a Christmas present. [No evidence in the anecdote to suggest the suspect had a present and, even if the suspect did, one can only speculate that the present was stolen.]

11.  The student was suffering consequences of his actions because he lied to get out of a ticket. [The student was interested in short-term consequences--getting out of the ticket; later, the unanticipated consequences started to get out of hand.]

12. The student not only made the conscious decision to lie, but also to __give a fake address  speed   __leave unattended presents. [The student gave the correct address; that's why the officer showed up at his door. Again, there is no evidence of presents being left unattended in the back seat--that's a lie; you'll remember the student was hurrying to see his girlfriend.]

13. When confronted by the officer presenting a suspect at his door, the student should have  confessed that he lied to the officer and apologized to the suspect __made a positive I.D. to cover his story __made a negative I.D. so the innocent suspect could be freed __made a negative I.D. so the consequences of the lie would come to an end. [Let's deal with the wrong answers first: positively identifying the suspect might "cover" the student's lies, but this lie concerns an arrest and would have real consequences. Making a negative I.D. would free the suspect, perhaps, but perpetuate the lie; the officer could keep on returning with more and more suspects fitting the student's description. That's why the last answer is wrong; the consequences can continue because the student has no control over that. Ethically, the student owes both the officer and the student an apology.]

14.  The officer was taken in wholly by the student’s lie(s). [Not enough evidence to decide. The suspect could have been an undercover officer ready to arrest the student if he made a positive identification. Your own suspicions should have been aroused because the officer returned at 3 a.m. at the student's door. Nonetheless, you can argue this question successfully for a few points in Question #30 by stating that the officer's motives cannot be fully known.]

15.  If the student was white and the suspect, African-American, the story becomes more ominous because it involves racial stereotyping. [Yes. Many liars, hoaxsters, criminals, etc., including Susan Smith--who, as explained in our text, drowned her two small boys and lied to police, blaming an African-American male--employ this destructive media stereotype.]

16.  If the student made a positive I.D. to cover his story, the student would be telling at least two lies but breaking no more laws. [Falsely accusing someone of a crime is breaking the law.]

17.  If the student made a positive I.D. to cover his story, the student would be telling only one lie but breaking no more laws. [Positively identifying the suspect is one lie and perpetuating the original lie, the other. Again, falsely accusing someone of a crime is breaking the law.]

18.  If the student made a positive I.D. to cover his story, the student would be telling at least two lies and breaking one more law. [Yes. The student would be falsely identifying the suspect, perpetuating the original lie, and knowingly accusing an innocent person of a crime.]

19.  When you lie once, you’re apt to lie again to shore up the original half-truth or falsehood. [Of course. This is the basic ethical lesson, as explained repeatedly in class and in the text.]

20.  If the student made a negative I.D., so the consequences for both himself and the suspect would come to an end, he would be acting ethically by controlling the outcome to cause the least harm to others. [Don't get taken in by the ethics-sounding jargon about "causing the least harm to others" (think "trigger" phrase); you can't control harm to others when you lie, after all. Again, as mentioned earlier, the student cannot stop the officer from bringing more and more suspects to his door. Finally, the student by this act also would be protecting his own self-interest. That's not acting ethically, as the statement claims.]

21.  Liars usually underestimate the odds of their own undoing or incrimination. Thus, if the student made a positive I.D. to cover his story, he could not have known whether the suspect was really an innocent bystander … or a police undercover agent. [See answer to Question #14.]

The anecdote shows:

22.  Lying is simpler than telling the truth. [Lying involves invention, which is complex; you have to guess at everything, including others' viewpoints, and anticipate what might occur before it does. You cannot reliably predict outcomes, so you usually keep lying. Telling the truth may be painful or embarrassing, but it's simpler than lying to "get out of something."]

23.  Lying is an efficient, effective way to get out of a ticket. [As the above answer illustrates, lying is typically neither efficient nor effective.]

24.  Telling the truth from the start is simpler than telling a lie. [See answer to Question #22.]

25.  Telling the truth usually becomes more difficult after you have told the first lie. [The truth usually is painful or embarrassing to begin with, but often becomes more so after you lie because, typically, you violate someone's trust. Many times, people will not believe you ever again. Nonetheless, there is some wriggle room--not much, by the way--to argue this in Question #30.]

26. Officers cannot be trusted under any circumstance at 3 a.m. [The phrase "under any circumstances" should have been a redflag. If it wasn't, you probably got taken in by a trigger word. Nonetheless, because I state "at 3 a.m.," you can argue this somewhat in Question #30.]

27.  Officers can be trusted under any circumstance. [Again, the phrase "under any circumstance" was the redflag here. You can't argue this, though, in Question #30.]

28.  The officer might have had a motive, returning at 3 a.m. with a suspect but with no presents. [The key words are "might have." Yes, the suspect might have been an undercover officer ready to arrest the student if he made a positive I.D.]

29. Any student who would be bold enough to share this story in an ethics course should arouse the suspicion of the teacher because __the story seems too good to be true; __if true, the story was told by a liar;  __the story was an example of inappropriate disclosure  all of the above. [The story does "seem" too good to be true, especially in an ethics class. If true, the story is told by a liar--and that's the reason why we suspect "the story seems too good to be true." The student was inappropriately disclosing information that called attention to himself in such a way as to violate his own privacy and integrity--worth far more than class participation, in this case. You might have another opinion, but it will only be worth a few points in Question #30.]

30. Identify your weakest answer above by circling the entire statement. Then write a short essay (no more than 100 words) in the space below defending and supporting that answer: [See answers for Questions 14, 21, 25, 26, 29]

Lying index:

Each correct answer is worth 5 points.

________________________________________________________
Pinocchio                                                             Leonardo da Vinci
0-89 [F-range]      90-104 [D-range]       105-119 [C-range]      120-134 [B-range]          135-150 [A-range]