Morality of carrying a gun in an NPE

[JAD]

.

For those of us who subscribe to a philosophy of post-conventional morality,

If you're interested, Walter Conn in the late 70s and early 80s did some of the most interesting engagement with Kohlberg that I've read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[David Armstrong]

Is it better if you carry in an NPE in condition 3?

I would think the carry condition to be irrelevant in this case, as is true of most cases.

[David Armstrong]

1. The incident occurred without previous knowledge of the boss's bigotry.
2. In the Depression, one might put up with a boss that was horrible in order to have a place to live and eat. Perhaps to support older parents?

If done without knowledge that is a different issue. Once one knows of the issue is when it becomes problematical.

[David Armstrong]

Prove it

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 can't make me

Of course not. Why would I want to do so?

I'm not telling

That certainly is your choice.

Thank you for playing.



Lolololololololol[/QUOTE]

[David Armstrong]

from Captain:
Way to ratchet up the condescension on this post.

I guess one can read whatever they want to in a post. Probably more a reflection on the reader than the poster.

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. Now, your real issue is the deception - you can say that is mallum in se, but what everyone else in this entire thread is saying is that breaking the carrying rule is mallum prohibita, and they are right.

Wrong. 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. One of them was the mal/prohibita isssue, and to a man they all said that knowingly violating an agreement one has entered into of their own free will and then hiding that violation is mala en se, based on the idea that a society cannot function unless agreements are considered to be valid. Otherwise there is no actual agreement and all actions would then be based on dishonesty.

Okay, finally - carrying in spite of the rule is mallum prohibita - you finally admit it.

No, wrong again. I said carrying IN IGNORANCE of the rule was probably prohibita.

Now, as for the rest of that paragraph, which you say becomes a wrong in and of itself... In my location, I am required by law to conceal any weapon I carry. Therefore, I am staying within legal bounds by not flaunting the fact that I am carrying. Therefore it is not purely deception that leads me to conceal my weapon - it is in fact following the law that governs carrying of a weapon in my state. So, if I willingly disclose that I am carrying any time I am asked - am I deceiving the company? I'm almost certain I would only be asked upon being made or having to use my weapon. I am equally certain I would be asked to consent to search if I say no and fired if I refuse, so at that point, I would of course admit to carrying. So other than the legally required concealment of my firearm, where is the deception "in exchange for money"?

Flaunting has nothing to do with it. You are violating a rule that is considered part of your employment and willfully hiding that action so as to avoid repercussions. That was another question for the philosophers, and they used the term "deception by omission."

But that's exactly what I'm disputing. An officer is not paid to just produce arrests - he is paid to be on duty, a duty he does not perform while sleeping. You can say nothing happens, but the only person that would really know that is the person that was there and alert. With him sleeping, all manner of things may have happened without his (or anyone else other than the perpetrator's) knowledge.

Again, I beleive the argument has been from the "it's ok to deceive" side that if there is no harm it doesn't matter. I stipulated in my example that nothing happened, there was no harm. Thus it logically follows that if nothing has happened then it is OK to sleep according to that reasoning.

That duty includes specific things, none of which are sleeping. He is directly breaking the actual terms of what he is being paid for.

Hmmmm, sounds a whole lot like someone who knowingly violates a work rule and hides it, as they are directly breaking part of the terms under which they are being paid.

Just like someone taking a test is being given a grade based on their proof of knowledge and skills.

Not necessarily. Tests are far more often graded on what one can remember or understand at that particular time based on an interpretation of material. Tests often have little relation ship to knowledge and skills. Frequently it is more a test of ones ability to take a test rather than knowledge. Further, cheating often is done for the benefit of another, such as Student A giving the answers to a test to Student B.

Cheating and dereliction of duty are not morally equivalent to following or breaking an added-on rule. They just aren't and your protestations to the opposite are tiresome and fall flat with, from what I can see, everyone else on this thread. Now, was that a better "logical response" or do you have something else to change or pile on to sound more condescending?

Sigh. As often happens in these discussions, when one is having trouble defending their position with logic and reason they resort to accusations and name-calling. How trite. BTW, intentionally violating a rule and then pretending to follow that rule in order to get paid IS cheating.

I believe (not that anyone in a right to work state signs a contract or actual employment agreement) to make a legally binding agreement, one has to state all of the terms before said agreement is valid. Since both parties have agreed to the heretofore presented terms, then the agreement is made and no further addendums should be allowed. What's not to understand about that?

You believe incorrectly, at least in a legal context. If one party intentionally hides some of the terms from the other you might have something, but most areas of employment law that I have been involved with put the onus on the hiree to check the terms if they want to, and if they don't they are considered bound by those terms. Sort of like reading the fine print in a contract. If you choose not to that is your problem.

Are we talking about legality or morality? You keep throwing around mala in se, so I thought the whole issue was morality? That (according to the subject line) is what we are supposed to be discussing. Try to focus and stop changing what it is you're saying. See Bryon's comment on goalposts earlier if you're still confused...

Since you posited the following: "The thing is this - when one does not have the authority to make a particular rule, then that rule should in no way be binding. " it seems pretty clear to me you are discussing the right (authority) to do something, In this case the authority for an employer to establish workplace rules is based on a legal doctrine, thus the obvious need to refer to the law. If you don't want to discuss authority to do or not to do, don't bring it up. Businesses DO have the authority to prohibit carry in premises unless the law specifically says otherwise.

Legally, I'll take my lumps - I'm a big boy. Besides, legally I work in a right-to-work state - they can fire me whenever they want for any reason and I have no recourse. Guess I'd better hide my gun well and do my job to the best of my ability... I bet if I do, my employer will love me since I am giving them everything they asked for when they hired me.

Now, morally? They don't have the authority to make the rule, thus I am not morally obligated to follow it. Given that morals are specific to the individual, I don't see what is left to discuss.

Again, wrong, as they do have the authority to make the rule, both legally and morally, just as you have the right to not work for them. That is the key to the issue, a voluntary agreement that one party chooses to violate while pretending to honor it. Again, to fall back on the philosophers discussion, the attempt to hide the deception is the greater moral wrong and is what changes what might be a mala prohibita act into a mala en se act.

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.

Bye bye. The last word shall be "artichoke."

[orionz06]

Who are you trying to quote there?

[David Armstrong]

You are arguing that the definition of a prohibition as malum in se or malum prohibitum depends on the cognizance of the actor, and that willful violation of a malum prohibitum rule somehow converts it to being malum in se. Strange logic in my opinion. Using the same logic and a not unreasonable statement that compliance with all laws is a "basic social structure", you virtually eliminate all prohibitions which would be considered malum prohibitum.

Nope, that is not my argument. My argument, which apparently is correct according to the folks I checked with, is that violating the rule then hiding that fact while pretending to be following the rule is what causes the shift.

[David Armstrong]

Who are you trying to quote there?

I believe if you will look at the first quoted block it says "from Captain".

[BobLoblaw]

Rant mode: engaged.

Signing an employment contract says you agree to give a company the results outlined in said job description and in exchange they give you said money. Your continuing employment is based on your past performance and loosely based around their rules and whatever else they feel like (they can even fire you for questioning company rules). Rule infractions don't void the employment contract since said rules do not exist in said contract. You may or may not get fired for a rule infraction but that doesn't mean the decision to break said rule is wrong. The benefits of doing so could make it right. Either party may fire the other for literally ANY reason. Avoiding pissing the company off is smart but again, not required.

Payment for work and continued employment are separate matters entirely and should be treated as such. You provide the results listed in the job duties section clearly outlined in your employment contract or you don't get paid. You break their rules (which are what they would like for you to do or not do) and they might not want to work with you in the future but it has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on accepting payment for completion of services rendered. Services rendered, once again, is completion of job duties outlined in your employment contract which has absolutely nothing to do with the company rule book. Again, just to be clear: no one is lying for money in the confines of this discussion. They are completing work for money. They also happen to be putting their own rules above someone else's to avoid potential death of self or others. This may or may not have an effect on the amount of future income you could accrue but it has no bearing on the payments themselves.
Furthermore, following somebody else's rules may be in your best interest at times but you have absolutely no moral obligation to put their rules over your own unless your morals say they do. Being honest to yourself may or may not be more important than being honest to others.

Sorry to repeat myself and others but it's apparent that the message is not being received. Morality is not for any one person to decide regardless of some of the logical arguments and face-palming absurdity in this discussion. Their morals may not be logical to you because THEY ARE NOT YOUR OWN MORALS.

Rant mode: aborted
Eco mode: engaged

[Captain]

Where's the damn like button on this forum?