Morality of carrying a gun in an NPE

[cclaxton]

The more I think about this, the more this comes down to one principle: INTEGRITY.
Definition: "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
"he is known to be a man of integrity"

Notice the "and" between honesty and strong moral principles.
Cody

[Peally]

I think it comes down more to "my values are more important than my company's employee handbook"

That and 25 pages of arguing about a choice everyone's free to make

[Mr_White]

One of the great things about working at a university is the ease with which one can call on experts in various fields. I strolled down to the philosophy den today and posed a few questions to the folks htere.

Simpl;e logic. If everyone accepts things as htey are and makes no effort to change them, then things don't chage. Change almost by definition is fueled by need or impolse to modoify the status quo.

You could stroll down to the English department to find out if you know how to spell. Then next stop could be the math department to help you tally the errors.

[orionz06]

The more I think about this, the more this comes down to one principle: INTEGRITY.
Definition: "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
"he is known to be a man of integrity"

Notice the "and" between honesty and strong moral principles.
Cody

I think I like this.

I think it comes down more to "my values are more important than my company's employee handbook"

That and 25 pages of arguing about a choice everyone's free to make

#drivel #tldr

Coming soon (no, really).

And a dislike button?

[orionz06]

What about a custom rating system? Maybe use vests instead of stars? This could easily be a 5 Vest thread.

[MDS]

The self-righteous will to impose our view of right and wrong - to judge others by the details of our own priorities - drives the left ... and the right ... and at least one half of the debate in this thread.

Someone mentioned the problems with relativistic morality. But the problem with absolute morality is this: who gets to pick? As long as I'm not explicitly harming anyone, it's not immoral to live according to my own morality. (It may also be moral even if I am hurting someone, but we can skip that discussion for this thread about carrying in a NPE.) Now, I'm sure as hell not gonna let you pick the morality according to which I'll live. If you - and I use the anonymous "you" here, not referring to anyone in particular - if you want to judge me by your own morality, to call me a dishonorable, dishonest liar because I navigate these waters of human interaction with a different map of the treacherous shoals, then you'll approve of me judging you by mine, you pompous, self-righteous, braying ass of a petty little tyrant in your own mind.

As for the ethics question, it revolves around living in peace and harmony with our neighbors and coworkers. The next time (it's already happened) that a doctor uses his policy-prohibited gun to ward off a potential mass murder, we'll be one step closer to convincing a critical mass of people that guns aren't nearly as dangerous as a victimhood mentality. Then we can hope to evolve the policies so that this NPE question doesn't come up. Meanwhile: disarm in an NPE like I do; or stay armed and don't get caught; or avoid NPE's altogether. Your life, your risk, your call.

[JAD]

Mario, I think I'm the only one who has mentioned relativism, and I'm real sure I didn't say anything deserving of that invective. If it was directed at someone else, please disregard. Some people who find problems with relativism are judgmental, that's for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MDS]

Mario, I think I'm the only one who has mentioned relativism, and I'm real sure I didn't say anything deserving of that invective. If it was directed at someone else, please disregard. Some people who find problems with relativism are judgmental, that's for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely not meant at you! It was directed at no one in particular. This discussion seems to have gone beyond people sharing their thinking, and devolved into into a judgment and a defense from that judgment. Here's what this thread sounds like, to me:

"I carry in an NPE for such and such reasons."

"I don't carry in an NPE for such and such reasons" - so far, so good! - "and anyone who carries in violation of corporate policy is a rotten dirty so-and-so."

"Well, then! I never! You're absolutely wrong for these reasons..."

In that context, which could be totally wrong, but it's my current interpretation - I was trying to make two points: first, that whoever wants me to follow all the details of their moral code can suck it; and second, that whoever wants to judge me by the details of their own moral code should want me to judge them by mine.

Sometimes being staff sucks because I don't want anyone to feel like these opinions are official, or shared with other staff, or somehow protected or elevated above other opinions on here. So I profusely apologize if it sounded like this was meant for you in particular! And I hope everyone feels free to tear my opinions to shreds if they feel like theirs makes more sense!

[Chuck Haggard]

Sometimes the only decision one can make falls under the "doctrine of competing harms".

IMHO following or not following silly assed rules that place people's safety in jeopardy, especially when the person or persons making those rules have little to no idea what they are doing, has nothing to do with morality.

[JDM]

I need to reread the PF employee handbook.

You're in violation of many, many, many rules.