Morality of carrying a gun in an NPE

[David Armstrong]

Well, of course one isn't going to announce one is breaking policy. Because getting fired is the greater wrong. The fact that it's a senseless policy having nothing to do with my actual work product makes it, to me, dispensable.

If workplace rules can be considered applicable or dispensable based on how each individual employee feels, it sort of does away with the entire concept of workplace rules, doesn't it?

We've been through this earlier in the thread. Companies have senseless HR policies all the time, for any variety of reasons. One reason might be that their perception of liability is more important to them than my safety. If I choose to ignore that rule then of course I'm not going to mention it.

And you are going to present the facade that you are following the rule. If you feel the rule is senseless then argue against it with the courage of your convictions, don't be deceptive about it. By hiding it you are tacitly indicating your approval of the policy.

Johnny is harmed, because his education is thwarted. The public is harmed because the officer is not available to help anyone. In both cases, they are cheating the exact, essential purpose of the job at hand. Totally not the same as some utterly irrelevant policy tacked on that has no bearing on their job.

Afraid not. Johnny isn't harmed, he is plenty smart and is getting a good education. He just chose to cheat this time. Same with the officer. He is available, and you might be surprised how well-trained some officers who coop a lot get when it comes to waking right up if the radio calls their unit. And since nothing happened while he was sleeping clearly there is no harm, right?

We're never going to agree on this. This policy in question is the very definition of malum prohibitum. It is an arbitrary "because I said so" rule, the breaking of which is not remotely inherently wrong. It has no bearing on what I produce for them. The fact that my employer tacks it onto his list of rules does not magically increase it to malum in se.

You are right. If agreeing to do something, then not doing it while pretending that you are doing it, and then taking compensation based on the fact you did whatever is not mala en se, then the basic foundation of social interaction (agreements between parties are to be followed) has no meaing or relevance. That such action is not inherently wrong is an unworkable premise.

Actually, I agree and never said otherwise. One can be in a position with no perfectly right options.
I sense that we're at "agree to disagree" time.

Didn't mean you had said otherwise, apologies if that was the way it came across. And yes, I agree<G>!

[Captain]

David, I believe everyone in this thread is at a "agree to disagree" time with you. This is a clear case of malum prohibitum. It is breaking a rule only. A rule that an employer has no moral or ethical grounds to make. There was no implicit "we will give you money if you follow all the rules" there was a very explicit "we would like to pay to you to do a very specific task for us." Period.

The funny thing is you keep mentioning things that are either illegal or quite obviously malum in se and then committing the fallacy of moral equivalency to say that carrying in the office is wrong. Sleeping on the job (provided it is not during your official break time), no matter what job, is not meeting the agreed condition of your employment (i.e.: you come to work and produce XYZ for us). Cheating on a test is misrepresenting your skill or knowledge to further your own career, academic or otherwise - indicating you can do or know something you don't and then expecting compensation for it, either money or a grade. Saying "Yes I will work for you and ply my skills and talent in exchange for money," and then finding out there's an office rule you don't like (or feel is morally wrong in this case), so you ignore it while still plying said skills and talent is very clearly not the same and is by no means a breech of the previously mentioned agreement.

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. If my five year old says that I can't leave the house with out Green Lantern underwear on, I'm just going to ignore him - he does not have the authority to make that rule. If the government were to pass a law that everyone, along with their healthcare, must declare allegiance to and worship Allah, then no one in their right mind should follow it - they do not have that authority, and yet as a citizen, I have an implicit agreement to follow the laws of this country. In the same way, telling me what I can and can't have in my pants is not within the authority of my employer. Declaring that I cannot have with me any means to protect myself is even further outside of their authority. Therefore, their rule is invalid. Thank God they're actually paying me to make a certain product and not based on what's in my pants. And yes, that's what she said.

At any rate, it's clear you and I don't see this issue the same at all, and there's no point going round and round. My conscience is clear in regards to my actions. I assume yours is in regards to yours, so you do you and I'll do me.

[Odin Bravo One]

David, I was disappointed to see you did not address the employer changing the terms of pay & benefits agreed to for services rendered, while the employee still being legally bound to the original terms of employment and expected services he/she originally agreed to provide.

[Palmguy]

nevermind

[orionz06]

Jesus.

[TCinVA]

David, I was disappointed to see you did not address the employer changing the terms of pay & benefits agreed to for services rendered, while the employee still being legally bound to the original terms of employment and expected services he/she originally agreed to provide.

[Peally]

This thread:

[orionz06]

But is he deceiving us and carrying a handgun in the NPE that is the shark tank? Let's have a 100 post discussion on it.

[David Armstrong]

David, I believe everyone in this thread is at a "agree to disagree" time with you. This is a clear case of malum prohibitum. It is breaking a rule only. A rule that an employer has no moral or ethical grounds to make. There was no implicit "we will give you money if you follow all the rules" there was a very explicit "we would like to pay to you to do a very specific task for us." Period.

Sorry, pretty much by definition it cannnot be mala prohibita when one looks at the principle. I might (and probably would) agree that carrying a gun at work in violation of a rule is prohibita if that is all one did. However, that is not all one has done here. In this case, since one is aware of the rule, intentionally and knowingly violates it, and then hides the fact they are violating the rule that they have agreed to, it is a mala en se concept. One has gone against a basic structure of social contact, that being one is expected to stand by an agreement one voluntarily makes. And following the rules of employment is always implicit in taking a job.

The funny thing is you keep mentioning things that are either illegal or quite obviously malum in se and then committing the fallacy of moral equivalency to say that carrying in the office is wrong.

One is certainly entitled to their beliefs and opinions. However, I have found over the years that the moral equivalency fallacy claim is usually trotted out when one has no logical response to the example that has been given. If one stays within the framework of the morality of agreeing to do something, then not doing it and hiding that fact while claiming to be meeting the agreement, most things do become equivalent given that the issue is the agreement and the hiding. I will concede an difference if there is a clear hurt or harm.

Sleeping on the job (provided it is not during your official break time), no matter what job, is not meeting the agreed condition of your employment (i.e.: you come to work and produce XYZ for us).

The product of the officer who is cooping has not changed in this case.

Cheating on a test is misrepresenting your skill or knowledge to further your own career, academic or otherwise - indicating you can do or know something you don't and then expecting compensation for it, either money or a grade.

Again, wrong. Lots of cheating is done simply because of laziness, some of the best students turn out to be some of the worst cheaters, and the difference in the score they would get is irrelevant to their overall standing. It is a shortcut or a safeguard for them.

Saying "Yes I will work for you and ply my skills and talent in exchange for money," and then finding out there's an office rule you don't like (or feel is morally wrong in this case), so you ignore it while still plying said skills and talent is very clearly not the same and is by no means a breech of the previously mentioned agreement.

Sorry, but claiming that unless a company goes through each rule in advance it is OK to then break the rule violates pretty much all common sense. One has to suspend the idea that when one works for an organization it is a total package deal, not just an end product deal.

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.

If you can find me a law that says the compnay cannot make that rule you might have something. Until then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Declaring that I cannot have with me any means to protect myself is even further outside of their authority. Therefore, their rule is invalid.

Again, if you can provide some law that supports that, great. But at this time AFAIK pretty much all legal doctrine says just the opposite.

Thank God they're actually paying me to make a certain product and not based on what's in my pants.

You keep making that claim but your actions indicate that you don't even believe that. If the claim was true, then there would be no rule. If the claim was true, you would not feel the need to hide it from them. If it was true, if they knew it wouldn't matter. Apparently it does matter since you feel the need to decieve them regarding your actions.

At any rate, it's clear you and I don't see this issue the same at all, and there's no point going round and round. My conscience is clear in regards to my actions. I assume yours is in regards to yours, so you do you and I'll do me.

Of course. One usually does what their conscience dictates to them. I have no problem with that. I do question the loops and hoops some go through to try to rationalize an action that has no logical support.

[David Armstrong]

David, I was disappointed to see you did not address the employer changing the terms of pay & benefits agreed to for services rendered, while the employee still being legally bound to the original terms of employment and expected services he/she originally agreed to provide.

Sorry, I thought I did that. I would agree it is wrong to change the agreement without also allowing the other party to opt out of further involvement. I might see an exception for emergency circumstances or other legal issues.