Morality of carrying a gun in an NPE

[JodyH]

lying and dishonesty were considered reprehensible outside of very narrow categories.

Now that we've established you're a prostitute, we just have to settle on a price.

[David Armstrong]

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

One is certainly entitled to their opinion, but I generally take the positioii that the person who makes a statement is probably in a better position to know what they meant than someone else.

No one is actively "pretending" anything.

Sure they are. They are pretending they are following the rules and that they are in agreement with them.

An agreement that doesn't necessarily even exist.

I go back then to the idea that has to work both ways, to include the employer deciding not to pay you because there was no agreement on what was to be done and how it would be compensated.

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.

I'm sorry if that is your experience, but it certainly is not mine. As for it being non sequitor, arguing against that is contradicted by basic logic. If an organization did not expect employees to follow rules there would be no need for a rule book. If one was not expected to live up to an agreement there would be no need for an agreement. The fact those things are present clearly indicates there is some importance placed on them. As for "above and beyond" I have always tried that in my work experience, most of my family holds the same idea, and I have instilled it in my daughter, which may explain our universal success in our chosen fields. I know some folks try to get by with as little as is required on their job, but as mentioned I was raised a bit differently.

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.

I try to be relatively magnanimous with folks who clearly are having trouble understanding come concepts, as is clear by the fact you seem unable to understand the cheating analogy. Being petty about it won't improve things. As for dismissing of criticisms, legitimate criticisms are welcome and worth discussing, criticisms based on changed parameters or morphing the situation into something else generally are not considered legitimate and thus not worth much effort.

[Captain]

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.

The main problem with this is that you're confusing ethics and morals. Ethics being what society has deemed acceptable and right and morals being what the individual has decided is just and right.

I don't espouse a "I should get to do what I want" philosophy, I espouse a "I have fuller understanding of what is truly just and right and therefore that supersedes the ethics of the group or society" philosophy. To say that someone who carries in an NPE is inherently dishonest or amoral is an argument lacking nuance, flexibility, or basic understanding of the nature of societal ethics and individual morality. Also, consistently applying said philosophy and morals would make it non-situational, would it not? Because I pretty much have a blanket policy of following rules and regulations when they are just and ignoring them when they are immoral.

[David Armstrong]

Define function rather well.

function: any of a group of related actions contributing to a larger action.
rather: to some degree or extent.
well: satisfactorily.

[David Armstrong]

Now that we've established you're a prostitute, we just have to settle on a price.

Putting aside the rather pathetic character attack, nonsense. Some of the categories have already been mentioned and supported by others, such as to save the lives a a number of innocent people. Unless, of course you would think those folks were also prostitutes.

[David Armstrong]

The main problem with this is that you're confusing ethics and morals. Ethics being what society has deemed acceptable and right and morals being what the individual has decided is just and right.

Sorry, but again you are wrong. Morals are concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character. That is a social consideration, as different cultures have different concerns. Ethics, of course, are rules of behavior based on ideas of what is good or bad. Both of the terms have both an individual as well as a societal consideration.

I don't espouse a "I should get to do what I want" philosophy, I espouse a "I have fuller understanding of what is truly just and right and therefore that supersedes the ethics of the group or society" philosophy.

In other words, you think you should get to do what you want in spite of rules to the contrary.

To say that someone who carries in an NPE is inherently dishonest or amoral is an argument lacking nuance, flexibility, or basic understanding of the nature of societal ethics and individual morality.

You may be right, but that is irrelevant as that is not my argument. My argument is that agreeing to do somethign, then violating that agreement while pretending to follwo the agreement is dishonest.

Also, consistently applying said philosophy and morals would make it non-situational, would it not? Because I pretty much have a blanket policy of following rules and regulations when they are just and ignoring them when they are immoral.

Again, that seems a whole lot like you think you should get to do what you want.

[Clay]

There is such a thing as "righteous civil disobedience", and our individual concerns about personal safety with respect to the right to bear (concealed) arms trump any nonsensical corporate rules made solely for "feel good" reasons, and which will never prevent criminal activity in any case!

I advocate carrying a sidearm at all times unless some external "detector" makes such impractical or impossible, due to the inconvenience or other difficulty encountered in explaining yourself to agents of "the state".
I either avoid such circumstances, or endure them as little as needs be (such as when testifying in court).

The paper "legality" of CCW at any particular place or time represents an effort by lawmakers to restrict the potentially-injurious actions of violent sociopaths. Unfortunately, those efforts simply don't work, and criminal sociopaths don't obey those laws.

If you are a morally-upright, courageous, mentally-stable and sensible person, you have fulfilled the SPIRIT of the law, since you are no danger to the innocent.
If you carry discreetly and don't draw attention to yourself, no one will know if you are armed or not, and no one will be harmed by your discreet CCW, yet you WILL be capable of an armed response if a deadly threat requiring such appears.

Post office? Hospital? School? Church? What difference does it really make?

Understand, I'm NOT advocating ANYTHING LIKE wanton disobedience to authority or disregard for rule. I'm speaking of MORAL issues which both underlie and supercede codified laws.

Some folks may find this beyond their comprehension, though those of us who have done this for decades, and have thought through the moral principles involved have no difficulty with the concept.

Excellent post. Sums it up nicely. Well done.

[Captain]

Sorry, but again you are wrong. Morals are concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character. That is a social consideration, as different cultures have different concerns. Ethics, of course, are rules of behavior based on ideas of what is good or bad. Both of the terms have both an individual as well as a societal consideration.

In other words, you think you should get to do what you want in spite of rules to the contrary.

You may be right, but that is irrelevant as that is not my argument. My argument is that agreeing to do somethign, then violating that agreement while pretending to follwo the agreement is dishonest.

Again, that seems a whole lot like you think you should get to do what you want.

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

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.

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.

[TGS]

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

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.

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.

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.

Instead, here's what you've got:

[JodyH]

Binary thinking is not deep thinking.