英国paper代写：How to treat the issue of plagiarism reasonably
As what we have learned from primary school to university, plagiarism is regarded as “a learned sin”. Lecturers had taught us to avoid plagiarism in our writing. What is more, we may receive corresponding punishment if we directly use other people’s word without indicating the sources.
Nevertheless, the deep-rooted concept has been influenced by two articles written by Stanley Fish and Ramanathan & Atkinson. It seems that these two articles have no connection from the title. Actually, if Fish could have conversation with Ramanathan and Atkinson to talk about their opinion on plagiarism, they would chime in easily. In other words, the thesis that plagiarism is not a big moral problem has been demonstrated in both papers. Some of their argument and examples can be compatible and mutually supportive and several important points are as follows:
First of all, most people sometimes do not realize that they are plagiarizing since the criteria to identify are complicated. To be more specific, plagiarism is an obsession for insiders. As Fish have mentioned in his paper, plagiarism is like playing golf. Outsiders cannot understand the complicated rules. Ramanathan & Atkinson also come up with the idea that plagiarism should be treated in the different context . This simply means that plagiarism may not be a very severe moral issue under some circumstances. A very appropriate example has been demonstrated in Fish’s paper: people may not think it is obvious plagiarism if two music episode are similar and would not consider it is plagiarism if a politician use others’ words without quoting. As a result, student who do not know they are plagiarizing should not be counted into moral crime.
Secondly, plagiarism is “a breach of disciplinary decorum, not a breach of the moral universe.” In other words, plagiarism is not a big moral deal. It is a problem about breaking discipline. One should not be severely punished if he do not even grasp all the details. In modern society, people would rather spend time on learning more useful and valuable things than studying the rules of plagiarism. It is not hard to imagine a beginner would break the rules of golf unconsciously because a P.G.A official would also hold a rule book in hand for the sake of faire judgment. In this case, the punishment for those kind of plagiarism should be regarded as the level of disciplinary instead of moral issue.
Thirdly, the concept of plagiarism may not make sense in some fields. As we know, originality is the reason why plagiarism is blamed. However, the understanding about originality may be different and even invalid in the aspect of philosophy. As a result, the notion of plagiarism may not be reasonable correspondingly. In addition, the idea of individualism and collectivity may also be influential to the understanding of plagiarism. Ramanathan and Atkinson have discussed that collectivity weakened the interests of individual. In some cultures, all the things are from the public. As a consequence, the works created by groups are regarded as the achievements should be shared and return to the public. What is more, sometimes the copy and imitation of previous paradigm and model can get more valuable and efficient outcomes. In this case, the respect of originality is not emphasized and plagiarism would not be considered as severe problem.
In conclusion, the two papers are logically connected and mutually supportive on some viewpoints. They both claims that we should treat plagiarism more reasonably. To be more specific, they shared similar thesis and examples when proving plagiarism should not be morally blamed under some circumstance. Although plagiarism is not a severe moral crime, it does not mean that plagiarism should not be punished. At least, certain rules should be kept to guide and lead people not to deliberate plagiarism. I believe the most rational way to handle plagiarism is that do not criticize it rigorously but keep the bottom line at the same time.
Fish, Stanley. “Plagiarism is not a big moral deal.” New York Times 9 (2010).
Ramanathan, Vai, and Dwight Atkinson. “Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers.” Journal of second language writing 8.1 (1999): 45–75.