Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
But proportion and the fact that Corrie ten Boom and Paul Rusesabagina were accepting the certainty of grave personal consequences to themselves if discovered in order to help others make the nature and quality of their actions different from (and not comparable to) Mr.Cothran's.
|
Mr. Cothran faced grave personal consequences by obeying the immoral rule. I won't fault him for doing so. Nevertheless in the cases of ten Boom and Rusesabagina and undercover cops etc. They lied.
So, I am not misrepresenting you by saying you concede that it may be permissible to lie? If so, we can then argue the criteria for when that is appropriate.
However, if you contend it is never permissible to lie (and that is a fair position) then we have no ground to cover, but prior in this thread there has been a lot of chortling about "honor" and "integrity" which I think misses the point of this discussion.
So Frank, given the facts of the OP story do you contend that Mr. Cothran was immoral, bereft of integrity and should have put his life at the mercy of the robber in order to obey a company work rule given the circumstances he faced?
Let's assume for argument's sake that his choices were limited in other employment and avoid the "let 'em eat cake" view of "go find another job" dodge.
I want to know what you think of these folks in that decision.