Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying "stealing isn't morally wrong - inventory control is retailers' responsibility and therefore it's their job to reduce loss".
Academic cheating is NOT morally wrong in a general sense. We only think it is because it's drilled into us from a young age by the educational system. But there's really no equivalent of "cheating" in real world industries where it's the results that matter. e.g. nobody cares if you took wrote the software yourself or got it from someone else's library, as long as the software product works. If cheating happens, it…
Well, morality isn't an objectively-verifiable property of the physical universe but one about which different opinions exist and where even if a “correct” answer exists it isn't demonstrably so, and in that sense nothing is morally wrong in a fully general sense, and moral values are very much shaped by socialization, sure.
OTOH, academic cheating involves violation of agreements and obtaining things of value by false representations, which is fairly broadly considered to be morally wrong generally, not just in the specific case of academic cheating.
> But there's really no equivalent of "cheating" in real world industries where it's the results that matter.
Pretty much the entirety of the law is about defining the what is cheating in seeking “real world” results, in the same way as academic codes define what is cheating in academic contexts.
Particularly, delegating assignments to third parties outside the scope of authorization by those giving the assignment, or using materials prohibited by those giving the assignment when completing it, is cheating in the real world, and not just the academy. (The reasons assignments have those kind of restrictions may be different, of course.)