"Which important societal construct rests solely on the assumption that no students cheat "
Society does not depend on wether or not a few students cheat.
But society definitely depends on the social and moral contract that we do not cheat, and that it is wrong. If most of us cheated, the system would definitely fall apart.
Have you ever visited a developing nation? Where outside of small villages it seems like everyone is cheating at everything, all the time?
It's like pouring sand into the gears of an engine: everything starts to break down.
I would not hire someone who admitted cheating during an interview unless they talked at length at their remorse, how they learned from it, how they grew from the experience, and there were exceptional circumstances.
> It's like pouring sand into the gears of an engine: everything starts to break down.
While true in general, cheating in that environment is also sometimes necessary to get on with your life unharmed. And sometimes cheating the system is actually regarded highly by the fellow citizens, because the people do not believe in the imposed system. Cheating is not beneficial to the system, but it often is to the people. Now, what is more ethical, doing what benefits the people or doing what benefits such system?
"And sometimes cheating the system is actually regarded highly by the fellow citizens, because the people do not believe in the imposed system. "
If you live a totally corrupt system, maybe.
But functional societies are based on the notion that cheating is bad, immoral, and nobody should do it.
"Now, what is more ethical, doing what benefits the people or doing what benefits such system?" - ha ha ... this sounds like how psychopaths in prison justify their crimes!
"I robbed the bank because the bank is evil, now who's more important, the people or the evil bank?"
People who rob banks are not necessarily psychopaths. For a good (fictitious but convincing) example, see Toby Howard in the film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_or_High_Water_(film) Robbing a bank is universally illegal, but it is not regarded as unethical in general.
Robbing average Joe is universally considered wrong. Robbing bankers, insurance companies or other powerful subjects, I don't think so. It depends on the circumstances - for a good example, see the movie, that is, if you like such a mental challenge.
Have you heard of the Robin Hood legend? It says the man was robbing the rich, and was very popular with the populace. I find it hard to believe that his robbing activity was regarded as 'unethical' by 'almost everyone'. Or a recent example, the sci-hub and libgen projects. They are robbing publisher shareholders of their profits. Do you think those projects are regarded as unethical by 'almost everyone'?
Society does not depend on wether or not a few students cheat.
But society definitely depends on the social and moral contract that we do not cheat, and that it is wrong. If most of us cheated, the system would definitely fall apart.
Have you ever visited a developing nation? Where outside of small villages it seems like everyone is cheating at everything, all the time?
It's like pouring sand into the gears of an engine: everything starts to break down.
I would not hire someone who admitted cheating during an interview unless they talked at length at their remorse, how they learned from it, how they grew from the experience, and there were exceptional circumstances.