Morality of carrying a gun in an NPE

[Chance]

Nobody is forcing you to take that job.

Honestly, this argument holds virtually no sway for me, personally. We live in a capitalist society where we're expected to do things like pay for food, and shelter, and taxes. Those things are sufficient motivation for me to try to earn as much as I can, though none of them literally 'force' me to do anything.

Ironically humorous there are a lot of people who believe that honesty and honor are the same thing.

This. So much this.

Not so simple to just find another job when 99.9% of employers have the same idiotic policies.

And also this. So much this. I've spent over a decade and six figures out of pocket putting together a skillset that places me in an industry filled with "forward thinking" people. Casually finding a job, in this field, that would not have these policies, is non-trivial.

[JAD]

I don't know where I got it, but 25 years ago I started saying "honesty does not demand full disclosure." I'm still pretty comfortable with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fixer]

And also this. So much this. I've spent over a decade and six figures out of pocket putting together a skillset that places me in an industry filled with "forward thinking" people. Casually finding a job, in this field, that would not have these policies, is non-trivial.

Exact same boat here. Not to mention many people take jobs so they can be in a strategic location for reasons such as family, weather, climate, health, etc...

[David Armstrong]

It does work both ways. My employer, for example, changed the terms of the pay & benefits AFTER both sides voluntarily agreed to the terms.

And at that time I would think you had the option at that time of not continuing your employment under the new terms.

Ironically humorous there are a lot of people who believe that honesty and honor are the same thing.

I would agree and certainly would not consider myself in such a camp. To me the line in this instance is that one party is taking money from the other by deceiving the other party into believing they are adhering to certain rules.

[David Armstrong]

Honestly, this argument holds virtually no sway for me, personally. We live in a capitalist society where we're expected to do things like pay for food, and shelter, and taxes. Those things are sufficient motivation for me to try to earn as much as I can, though none of them literally 'force' me to do anything.

That is sort of the key. Nobody is forcing you to work for that company, it is a choice. If one chooses to be deceptive, dishonest, lie, or whatever term one wants to use, that is also a choice. I would argue the company was wrong if they were deceptive towards you. For example, if they agree they will put $5 for each hour you work into a retirement account for you, I doubt it would be OK to find out years later they were only putting $1 in that account, even if you did not discover that at the time.

[Captain]

To me the line in this instance is that one party is taking money from the other by deceiving the other party into believing they are adhering to certain rules.

Actually, I'm agreeing to take money in exchange for a job that maybe 1-3% of the population can do at the talent/quality level that I do. What I carry on my person while performing that should be largely irrelevant.

[DacoRoman]

Ironically humorous there are a lot of people who believe that honesty and honor are the same thing.

Well said, and like I wrote in my last post honesty and morality are not the same thing either. Being honest does not automatically result in the most honorable or moral action. Being honest is just being honest, nothing more or nothing less. The honorable or moral implications run much deeper than knee jerk honesty, and the moral and ethical consequences of one's honesty may vary highly depending on the context.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One can comment on being deceptive in our 'gun context'. Is it deceptive or being immoral to hide personal characteristics of religion, race or sexual orientation in order to get a job in a time of economic diversity or in order to serve one's country?

Not really a comment on how to carry but on what is moral.

[Byron]

You are correct. I would add that "at will" employees can be terminated for any reason. For example, you abide by their rules at work but post something they don't like on Facebook. Or, you are in a justified shooting outside of work. Company doesn't like it, and it's goodbye.

Indeed.

It's hard to offer much respect to a farcical system of rules that contains the invisible print:
Following these rules 100% in letter and spirit could still result in exactly the same consequences as breaking them all.

Or how about this gem early in the handbook? "You owe a duty of loyalty to the Company."
I wish I was kidding, but that's a direct quote. It's weird because I certainly don't remember joining the armed forces.

I don't care how much a private company wants to pay me: why would I owe them a "duty of loyalty"? Especially after they've made it crystal clear that they will offer me no reciprocity in this realm.

I live under plenty of laws to which I did not consent, but still ostensibly retain protections. I never agreed that people should be arrested for gambling, but I also know that if I do not gamble, I cannot be jailed for gambling. I can also look up the statutory penalties for gambling, gain an understanding of exact procedures and punishments, and defend myself should I ever be accused of such a thing.

My employer offers me nothing of the sort...
Thanks for agreeing to take the job. Here's your paycheck. Oh, by the way... here are our rules. We reserve the right to change our rules however we want, whenever we want. We have no framework for our disciplinary proceedings. We already told you we can fire you for no reason, so why would we promise you a hearing of any sort? You and Bob could both scream at each other in the middle of the office and we might decide to just fire you. We might just fire Bob. Maybe neither of you. Or maybe we'll fire both of you. Take a chance and find out!

In fact, unequal treatment is not only accepted, but expected. I highly doubt my workplace is unique in this regard:
Situation 1 (which is a true story): President curses me out because he's having a bad day and he doesn't like the news I just gave him. His behavior is in clear violation of multiple parts of our policy and there are numerous witnesses. Oh well: sucks for me. I'm getting my paycheck so I just need to STFU.
Situation 2 (which has not YET happened): Someone else curses out that same president because he's forcing entire teams to work at twice their functional capacity. You can bet your ass that person is out of a job within the day.

Why such unequal treatment? Because the President is worth more money to the company. Who cares if he's right or wrong? As long as his tirade doesn't include specific phrases that could get them sued (i.e. religion, gender, etc.) then he can do what he wants.

Which brings us back to the value of these rules: they are only enforced relative to their financial impact. If the company stands to make more money by doing so, they will gladly turn a blind eye to certain violations (as in my personal example above).

Since my employer holds all the power and can punish me regardless of my adherence to their rules, I don't find any particular honor in blindly obeying said rules.

I do behave within the rules, but that's simply my natural behavior. I would behave exactly the same regardless of what our handbook said.

I'm going to own my faults here.

The tone and intent was condescending; that's really not excusable and I don't have a legitimate reason for it. But, at this point; I'll apologize to you Byron and own it. I was wrong to speak to Captain the way I did, and I was wrong to offend you as well.

I'd like to continue the discussion, if at all possible.

I would like to hear your counter points [on the American Civil War]. I'll offer some in a closing reply I have a few other pages to go through to see if I missed anyone.

I sincerely appreciate your candor and apology, even though I didn't feel like you owed me one.

I respect your desire to keep discussion going, but I think we've drifted way too far off topic. It is my personal opinion that the Civil War just isn't a relevant discussion to be had in this thread.

You've referenced primary sources from Lincoln, so I have to assume that you've also read primary sources from key members of the Confederacy. To have read those latter words straight from the horse's mouth, and still hold the position that you do, means that nothing I could say would change your mind.

That we have such divergent views of other historical events further reinforces my belief.

It is not my intent to disrespect you, so I hope it does not come across that way. Rather, I'm just saying that I'd prefer to "agree to disagree."

Put aside all the rationalization and such, what it boils down to is you agree to take their money in exchange for acting in a certain way. If you don't want to act that way don't take the money.

Either my word means something, or it means nothing.

There are still places in this country where it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay. Not because they whipped their dick out at work. Not because they plastered their cubicle with photos of naked men. Not because they raped someone in the bathroom. Simply because they go home to a committed partner of the same sex.

Pack your shit, homo. Get out of here. Have fun finding another job... especially after we make sure word gets out around here.

And if I had to live in one of those places for a while, I would happily lie to anyone's face that my coworker was in fact straight, knowing full well that he wasn't. My moral compass tells me that's the honorable thing to do: protect the job of a friend who has done absolutely nothing wrong. Whether or not I cash my paycheck has no influence on my decision whatsoever.

I suppose some people's moral compass tells them that the right thing to do is "out" the coworker if the boss ever asks. You agreed to take their money: you better be their rat.

The mere fact one would hide what they are doing seems pretty indicative that they realize their actions are wrong, otherwise why hide them?

By your logic, only open carry is honorable and people who carry concealed anywhere "realize their actions are wrong."

I would argue the company was wrong if they were deceptive towards you. For example, if they agree they will put $5 for each hour you work into a retirement account for you, I doubt it would be OK to find out years later they were only putting $1 in that account, even if you did not discover that at the time.

That's material damage.

What is the material damage of a holstered firearm inside of someone's pants that never comes out and no one ever knows about?

[karmapolice]

I look at it like this: I would and will give my last breath, my last second on this earth for those who I love and innocents. I'm also pretty keen on getting the full ride of this life before exiting stage right, so I will fight to stay alive for both those reasons. I carry a gun on duty 100% and off duty 99.8% of the time except when I fail myself and others. So if carrying a gun against the polices and or wishes of others make me a terrible, unethical, evil person than so be it. I will greet others like me at the burning gates of hell. Kyle Defoor put it best with his honorable death mindset speech, it's on YouTube somewhere.

Please excuse my horrible grammar and other mistakes. What value this has to the thread is maybe nothing but eh.