Is it morally wrong to consciously contribute to someone's failure? Should politicians stand for office when they know their promises are shallow? Who does this serve? Them, of course. Should teachers contrive a perfectly planned demo to be appointed under the guise of experience just to stutter when a student asks them a question? A teacher is primarily conducive to their students' intellectual development and the contingent scores that rest heavily upon the students shoulders for a better future. To completely disregard the fate of multiple students for personal interest, say a better salary or work environment, does not weigh equal.
One bad lesson compounds. If a student does not comprehend the foundation the entire lesson will come crumbling down. It becomes a gap that gets carried into the subsequent years, causing irreparable damage unless one seeks help elsewhere. That option, of course, exists. Tuition, additional help from other teachers, parents—but isn't the entire purpose of school to educate? To give quality knowledge to the next generation that will shape our future?
A teacher who cannot answer a student’s question isn't unhelpful just once; they become systemically unreliable at the precise moment learning occurs. The demo that impressed the panel will never be taught again but the uncertainty of knowledge will chip into the structure of education of every student it harms insidiously. A teacher doesn't have to bear the responsibility of someone's building collapsing due to the mere fault of relying on them to do their job.
Wanting better pay, trying to advance in your career—these aren't faults, they are needs that make us human. But the issue arises when we consider the means of acquisition to meet that end. To cause error in a student's most important year—12th grade: board exams, final scores and results that will immensely set them up for success is an unforgivable transgression that reality will not question.
Understanding one's ability before committing to be trusted for something they cannot honor must be deemed morally wrong. The ramifications become indisputable when escalated into other professions. A doctor who over-states their surgical experience to land a prestigious position seems ambitious to the individual that chases it but can be detrimental to someone's life in a situation where their expertise is relied upon. A lawyer that claims practice risks losing the innocent to the cages.
In the real world, reliance and experience become incredibly transactional, and the outcomes of it depend upon the competence of the claim. The student, patient, or client doesn’t get to verify competence in real time—they have to assume it. That’s what makes the moral burden heavier on the person in power.