Max Weber noted years ago that the research world is nothing but a world of confusion and ambiguity. In such cloudy conditions, as we saw in the first chapter, honesty and whistle-blowing seem to be the best policy, especially for those looking out for themselves first and foremost. Now, it is also true, as we have seen, that most of us tolerate some amount of cheating and lying. Let’s extend this analysis to the use of others’ words in our speaking and writing.

Many of us do not object to so-called “white” lies (although even in this area there is much misunderstanding, a subject to which we shall return). But which lies are objectionable, and how much lying is too much? Wherever we draw the line in answer to that question, if we tolerate cheating beyond that line we reduce everyone’s capacity to participate eagerly in the free flow of information. Since we cannot check every research result we use in our own research (indeed, we cannot check the vast majority of the results we use) we must trust in the truthfulness of others. But my willingness to trust others is diminished if I think others are plagiarizing. For I know how difficult it is to write up my research results and I know how upset I would be if I discovered someone else had gotten credit for an article that I had written. It is to an egoist’s advantage when others properly acknowledge the egoist’s written work. But does the egoist himself have any good reasons not to take unfair advantage of others’ work?