Does Surveillance Make Us Morally Better?

Does Surveillance Make Us Morally Better?

Central argument: There definitely is a relationship between surveillance and moral edification, as surveillances make people act the way they do by inducing fear or other forms of consequences into them.

While watching cartoon shows, especially Tom and Jerry, you may have noticed two characters that pop up on the shoulder of the main character (usually on Tom) when he is deeply troubled and has to make a difficult, moral choice. These two characters that appear out of nowhere usually take the form of an angel and a devil that eventually convince you into making a choice. However, if you are constantly being watched, even if the “devil” figure did manage to convince you, you would think twice before acting. In Emrys Westacott’s "Does Surveillance Make Us Morally Better?" article, she argues that surveillance does affect the behavior of a person in a positive way as they seem to behave better. However, Westacott’s argument is not true and can be seen in the behavior of some Woodstock School students, as well as one of my friend’s behavior after a test. Both these examples have students being watched over, but it’s their values that come into play when making a choice.

In my school, Woodstock, we certain rules while taking tests. Many teachers often make us separate our desks, we have an honor pledge to sign after taking the test, and they keep watch while we take the test. If anyone is caught cheating, they are sent to the honor council - who then deal with you in an unpleasant way, I presume. However, even though these strict rules are imposed on the students, many of them cheat and get away with it. This shows that even though someone is watching over them, they feel no need to worry as long as they can get away with it. After doing it a few times without getting caught, those students make it a habit of some sort and continue doing it. This shows how little they value honesty and how they are stooping to such a level to take credit for someone else’s work.

In contrast to those students that keep cheating without getting caught, my friend could not overcome the guilt she felt after doing so. In grade four we had weekly spelling tests, which we considered a very big and difficult task. One Friday, my friend, Nina, cheated on the test, got away with it, and got a perfect score. However, at the end of class, instead of going for recess, she stayed back in the classroom. A few minutes later she came out wiping her tears. She told me that she confessed to cheating. Her honesty probably impressed the teacher as only one point was deducted from her overall score – which meant that she still had an A+. Even though she was being watched, she did cheat; however, the fact that she went and admitted to her mistake voluntarily shows that surveillance does not always make you act for the better.

In both these cases, the presence of surveillance did not alter the decisions that were already made up in the student’s minds. If those students decided on cheating, they do so, even when they are being watched upon by the teacher and are lying to themselves by signing the honor pledge. In Nina’s case, even though she cheated, she owned up willingly, and rid herself of the guilt she felt. Surveillance does not always get you to act in a positive way, as people have ways to get past it, and the only thing that stops them from doing anything wrong are their morals.