Morality of carrying a gun in an NPE

[Palmguy]

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.

It is a logical extension of what you said. After all, society can not function unless all laws are considered to be valid. I haven't seen anything anywhere that considers mere possession of a firearm to be evil in and of itself, regardless of cognizance of any prohibition against such.

That said, you're also playing fast and loose with "hiding that fact" and "pretending to be following the rule". Both of those statements imply explicit action that is almost certainly absent for anyone who is in such a situation. You also don't necessarily know what is and isn't a condition of employment for any particular person outside of your assertion that it is simply implicit in taking a job, nor do you

You also conflate fundamental performance of a job with ancillary administrative compliance in your attempt to force an analogy between a sleeping cop and an armed employee. The fundamental performance of a patrol officer is to, you know, patrol. The fundamental performance of my job is to engineer stuff. It is not to be "unarmed man sitting in cube farm" (though I also happen to be that).

No one is harmed when Johnny cheats on a test to get a better grade.

Demonstrably untrue in multiple situations.

Just curious, what university philosophy department are you citing?

[Mr_White]

It has been my experience that when one declines to discuss the actual topic and instead chooses to focus on things like typing errors (I spell quite well, I type quite poorly) it is pretty indicative of the fact they have nothing cogent to say about the actual topic.

Many people have already made most of the available cogent comments. And as I have demonstrated with several posts, I can add nothing cogent to the discussion with many fewer (and more correctly spelled or typed) words than you. The substance of my responses to you reflects the substance I see in your BS arguments, no matter how many words you use or how many times you repeat them. Your position is overly simplistic, backwards, and nonfunctional.

a segment of the pro-gun side takes a position that it is OK to break a law or to be dishonest just because it involves a gun

Nice mischaracterization or failure to perceive the actual issue. It's not about the gun. It's about our very lives and consciences, and the contempt with which so many employers hold them via their policies. So in turn, I have contempt for their policies.

[Captain]

It is a logical extension of what you said. After all, society can not function unless all laws are considered to be valid. I haven't seen anything anywhere that considers mere possession of a firearm to be evil in and of itself, regardless of cognizance of any prohibition against such.

This is, in my opinion, the actual rub between David and myself. David is very much coming from a conventional morality, which can be summed up thusly:

it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society.

versus a post conventional wisdom, which I find myself in and can be summed up like so:

The post-conventional level, ... is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles. ... Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior... can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.

We see morality differently, therefore we reach different conclusions. The two are not compatible, though one does build upon (and ultimately move past) the other.

More info here if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrenc...al_development

[Byron]

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.

I tried to read some of his articles, but they are all behind pay walls. I also see that almost all of his articles are published in religious journals. The previews I've been able to read deal with Kohlberg in relation to faith based issues and religion, so I don't think I'd get much out of them. Thanks for the recommendation though.

[David Armstrong]

It is a logical extension of what you said. After all, society can not function unless all laws are considered to be valid. I haven't seen anything anywhere that considers mere possession of a firearm to be evil in and of itself, regardless of cognizance of any prohibition against such.

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't see that as a logical progression at all. In fact, it appears to be a completely separate issue than the one I posed.

That said, you're also playing fast and loose with "hiding that fact" and "pretending to be following the rule". Both of those statements imply explicit action that is almost certainly absent for anyone who is in such a situation. You also don't necessarily know what is and isn't a condition of employment for any particular person outside of your assertion that it is simply implicit in taking a job, nor do you

Again, I'd disagree that meets the criteria we are discussing here, which is when one understands there is a rule and voluntarily chooses to not follow the rule while pretending they are following the rule in order to get paid.

You also conflate fundamental performance of a job with ancillary administrative compliance in your attempt to force an analogy between a sleeping cop and an armed employee. The fundamental performance of a patrol officer is to, you know, patrol. The fundamental performance of my job is to engineer stuff. It is not to be "unarmed man sitting in cube farm" (though I also happen to be that).

I conflate nothing. Either one follows an agreement or one does not. Either one fails to live up to the requirements of the agreement or they do not. Adminstrative compliance is often as important to the organization as fundemental performance, which is pretty clearly indicated when one feels they need to pretend compliance when they are intentionally in violation. If not, there would be no need to hide the fact one is not following the rules.

Demonstrably untrue in multiple situations.

And demonstrably true in multiple situations, including the situation I offered.

[David Armstrong]

Many people have already made most of the available cogent comments. And as I have demonstrated with several posts, I can add nothing cogent to the discussion with many fewer (and more correctly spelled or typed) words than you. The substance of my responses to you reflects the substance I see in your BS arguments, no matter how many words you use or how many times you repeat them. Your position is overly simplistic, backwards, and nonfunctional.

And yet it is a position that so many manage to live by and has seemed to function rather well across multiple situations. But the fact that you agree you can add nothign cogent to the discussion is duly noted.

Nice mischaracterization or failure to perceive the actual issue. It's not about the gun. It's about our very lives and consciences, and the contempt with which so many employers hold them via their policies. So in turn, I have contempt for their policies.

Yet you seem to be willing to provide support for those policies by hiding that contempt. I have a lot more respect for folks who stand up for what they believe. As for the issue, no mischaracteriztion, simply disagreement. Some see it as a pretty clear issue of honesty.

[Mr_White]

function rather well

Define function rather well.

[JodyH]

I've found in life (and especially on the interwebz) that those who espouse extremely strict moral codes never live up to them, in fact they usually step much farther outside the lines than those who are day to day more flexible.

[Palmguy]

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't see that as a logical progression at all. In fact, it appears to be a completely separate issue than the one I posed.

It isn't, but whatever...Not with arguing the point further.

Again, I'd disagree that meets the criteria we are discussing here, which is when one understands there is a rule and voluntarily chooses to not follow the rule while pretending they are following the rule in order to get paid.

No one is actively "pretending" anything.

I conflate nothing. Either one follows an agreement or one does not. Either one fails to live up to the requirements of the agreement or they do not.

An agreement that doesn't necessarily even exist.

Adminstrative compliance is often as important to the organization as fundemental performance, which is pretty clearly indicated when one feels they need to pretend compliance when they are intentionally in violation. If not, there would be no need to hide the fact one is not following the rules.

Your supporting statement for this claim is a total non-sequitur. It's not true in the real world in my experience either....very little crushes morale and motivation to go above and beyond in the performance of ACTUAL job responsibilities like pointless corporate BS.

And demonstrably true in multiple situations, including the situation I offered.

Congratulations. All I saw was you dismissing legitimate criticisms of your cheater analogy, which by the way was rather magnanimous from someone ostensibly in higher education.



Sent from my Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk

[David Armstrong]

I've found in life (and especially on the interwebz) that those who espouse extremely strict moral codes never live up to them, in fact they usually step much farther outside the lines than those who are day to day more flexible.

That may be true in some cases, although I have found those that try to justify situational ethics and morality to be far more problematic. The problem is not so much if one just espouses a strict moral code nearly as much as if one has been raised to respect the moral code. In my family a man's word was his bond, and lying and dishonesty were considered reprehensible outside of very narrow categories. I realize many folks these days have adopted a "I should get to do whatever I want" philosophy, but there are still a few folks who believe honesty is the best policy and that one should not pretend to accept and support something they feel is wrong.