The case study I chose to analyze posed an interesting situation. A website gives people the opportunity to pay other people five dollars in exchange for the latter parties agreement to write a paper for the initial individual. After reading the case I attempted to determine whether or not the action should be deemed moral or immoral according to several philosophical theories. First I wanted to identify the core moral issue. At the core moral problems of the case study is are cheating. I chose to categorize the core moral conflicts as cheating because the definition of cheating is to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination. This case study is an example of cheating because someone is gaining an advantage through the work of others. It is also deceptive to allow a person to critic or grade the work knowing that you did not do it. Ethical relativism offers different two views points to look at cheating, the first being through an individualistic stand point and the other from a societal stand point. From an individualistic/subjective lenses cheating is moral. This is because according to this theory an individual has the right to do whatever makes that individual happy, so as long as the paper gets done and the main two people involved are satisfied then moral criteria is met. When looking at the issue of cheating from a societal/cultural perspective it would be determined immoral. This is because societal ethical relativism is fitted to the society. In the society that we live in it is frowned upon when you cheat and lie (the reason academic honesty rules are in place), so it would be immoral to break the rule of society. This method, however, is known to be flawed because of its inherent inconsistence. Ethical egoism maintains the view that everyone has the obligation to act selfishly. Looking at this particular situation it could be argued that an ethical egoist would state