Morality of carrying a gun in an NPE

[David Armstrong]

That's all what I would expect someone subscribing to conventional morality to say. Rigid and unable to understand - par for the course.

You make an assumptio without merit, that I don't understand. I understand perfectly, I just reject the premise.

Also, most people define ethics and morals thusly: http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/. Of course you are free to use whatever definitions you see fit or continue to change terms and confuse arguments so that you're always right. I would expect no less.

Most folks also use the terms interchangably, and numerous sources use them as synonyms for each other, so I consider the parseing of the terms to be a distraction from the main issue.

You should probably stop using the word WRONG so much as you are 100% unable to set or determine another person's morality for them, not to mention all the competing philosophies that are not WRONG but in disagreement with the rigid adherence to senseless rules that you espouse.

Hmm, sort of like Post #236, from Captain: "Wrong. Carrying in spite of a rule is breaking a rule only. It is not inherently wrong, especially since there is no clear moral authority or imperative to make said rule." One should probably practice what they preach. That aside, when people make claims or statements that are factually incorrect "wrong" is a valid term to use.
But I guess we shouldn't expect much from folks who agree to do something then fail to live up to that agreement....Post #236, from Captain: "Since you can't even acknowledge that you're changing your arguments (or at least couldn't before) I'm out. I'll even give you the last word since you'll pile it on regardless of what I say anyway." Yet here you are, almost 30 posts later. Pretty indicative of the issue being discussed, IMO.

[David Armstrong]

There's really no point in debating it with him. You're not looking to win him over......that's a given, being it's the internet. However, you'd at least hope for an understanding of your position, and an argument that isn't fluid depending on how it suits him (ironic, given his entire argument about people who change things to suit their needs), based on false definitions, and misrepresentation of your points.

You'll get none of that.

You're somewhat correct. There probably isn't much point in debating something with me without using accepted rules of debate and argumentation and without at least a little attempt at developing a logical argument. When that happens maybe we can get somewhere.

[David Armstrong]

...said "I'm trying to win an argument on the internet that's been raging for two hundred and fifty posts and in which I'm the sole remaining debater holding up my end of the position. It's crucial to me that I prove these imaginary people in my computer wrong, so give me the answers I want so that I can crush them and make them see how right I am!"

As usual, Tam, you seem to want to ascribe beliefs to me that not only are wrong, but that you could have no way of knowing outside of your imagination. I could care less, as there are few folks here who I see any reason to be particularly concerned about. I enjoy a spirited discussion and the exchange of ideas. Sorry that seems foreign to you.

This probably made the people in the Philosophy department, not normally used to being asked for concrete absolutes, happy as clams. Once upon a time, the Philosophy Dept. guys would have had to calibrate their response to you against the Right Answer, which was a platinum-iridium alloy bar stored in a vault in Paris, but since 1960, the Right Answer has been redefined as being equivalent to the length of 1.4x10⁷ Becauseisaidsos.

Apparently you hang around with a different type of philosopher than me.

[David Armstrong]

Probably everyone is worn out and just wants the thread to die but I've got a few minutes before I roll to my match.

Since you agree that being "dishonest" to save the lives of innocents is OK then we agree that carrying in an NPE is AOK. I'd certainly be an "innocent" as would be most everyone around me in that I am in no way an aggressor. I probably won't insert myself as a third party in an inter-gang gun battle so I'd say my focus is on saving the lives of innocents (myself, family and those around me).

Going back to the concept of competing harms that was discussed earlier, there are all sorts of things that are morally, ethically, and honestly questionable in concept that can be considered OK in certain specific instances. Going back to my initial point, which seems to have been lost as few seem willing to focus the discussion on it, voluntarily agreeing to act in a certain way, then intentionally not following that agreement while pretending to be following that agreement for your personal gain is not "OK".

[David Armstrong]

Tom and MDS are right. Too many posts have been personal attacks instead of related to the issue, and I plead guilty. I try to stay on issue but do tend to respond to attacks in a similar manner. Personally, I think that is a moral and ethical response to personal attacks and character assault but clearly that is not considered acceptable on this forum. In the spirit of the discusiioin, the forum has rules we agree to follow, and not following them after agreeing to do so is wrong. In this case there is a basic differenc, that of violating the agreement openly instead of hiding it, but it doesn't change the basic issue of agreeing to follow the rules. So I'm bowing out of the thread, and unlike some when I say that tend to actually do it.

[Mr_White]

So I'm bowing out of the thread

After all this, I wonder if you have persuaded anyone of your point of view?

[dgg9]

After all this, I wonder if you have persuaded anyone of your point of view?

Dave has persuaded me in the past, in other topics. I don't think it usually happens within the course of the thread. Human nature suggests that people on both sides of any contentious issue get defensive, touchy, and personalize the issue. As time passes, and people cool off, some small percentage of people will let the arguments marinate, and may see things differently. But even that is rare.

[orionz06]

After all this, I wonder if you have persuaded anyone of your point of view?

On the thread topic? Nope...

Dave has persuaded me in the past, in other topics.

Interdasting...

[MDS]

I think David has a solid point when he insists that breaking corporate rules while pretending not to is objectively dishonest. Where many of us disagree is the subjective judgment of whether dishonesty in this case is morally wrong. In the heat of debate, it seems these two separate assertions were con-fused.

I won't mind if this thread dies right here, but I have to say: even in a discussion that is the very definition of "full-contact navel-gazing," the people on this board are able to keep it civil. If only just barely. Good job.

[Sensei]

I think David has a solid point when he insists that breaking corporate rules while pretending not to is objectively dishonest. Where many of us disagree is the subjective judgment of whether dishonesty in this case is morally wrong. In the heat of debate, it seems these two separate assertions were con-fused.

Well said. There are indeed times when the moral choice is to be dishonest. When faced with such a choice, the moral person disciplines their actions to minimize unnecessary harm.