Okay we all know that plagiarism, the utterly reprehensible act of using the thoughts of another, reaping the rewards of that use, and then, not even providing the source of the info, is an official bad thing. But, let us look at it from the point of view of the plagiarist.
Here are some of the advantages of a career as a plagiarist:
Energy savings – ‘copy and paste’ uses far fewer resources than does thinking your own way around any subject. Any fool can see that.
Time savings – quite obviously, time not spent doing your own research and your own thinking, can be spent in other, more worthwhile pursuits. Finding other people to steal from, for instance.
Esteem of colleagues – what writer could help but admire a person who can meet the assignment deadlines with efficiency and dispatch while being abreast with the latest Page 3 doings. What could be hipper?
Professional friends – the long-term plagiarist is guaranteed, (thanks to CopyScape), to make close acquaintanceship with any number of lawyers and other such bottom feeders. Perhaps even get to hang out with them at their clubs and stuff.
Evolution – the plagiarist will, after all, be teaching his/her children that it is perfectly acceptable to misuse the property of another, especially if you can do it without having to go through pesky details such as permission. Surely the advantages to the body politic of that child’s adulthood, is self-evident.
There are, of course, many other advantages, but mention of them would simply be an unnecessary exercise in dealing with the bright shining justifications of the plagiarist.
However, we feel our charity slipping when we consider the concept of honor and honorable behavior. We hold this truth that honor is the lubricant that allows for a civil society. We further hold that plagiarism is a dishonorable act.
Profiting yourself at the expense of others is, and has been, an anti-social act and is, in its essence, viewed as stealing. The fact that it is a thought that is being stolen (as opposed to an object) cannot be offered as an excuse. An object, after all, is no more, nor less, than an original thought. The same can be said for the recorded thought, whatever the form of the recording. It doesn’t matter if that recorded thought may have been lying around for years unread until the plagiarists came along. The fact of an original author must be acknowledged. Most certainly, if that recorded thought is used, recompense must be made.
Having heard the justifications of the plagiarist and weighed against our concepts of civil society, it is our judgment that all convicted plagiarists should be made to listen to the troubles of the original author.