Carry at Work

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Not really. The very definition of integrity is truthfulness and accuracy in one's actions.

I see, so undercover police who lie to criminals in order to arrest them have no integrity.

Likewise, Corrie ten Boom, whose family hid Jews from the Nazi's and lied about it had no integrity either.

Of course, then there is Paul Rusesabagina of Hotel Rwanda fame who saved 1,268 by hiding them in his hotel and lying to the authorities about doing so.

Here's another question I've asked and no one has answered yet. If the laws changed and guns were illegal; would you keep yours and lie about having them?

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

With morality, there are only two choices. There either is or is not a real right and wrong.

The instances I mentioned above involve lying. I can go on and on with more examples. Still are you sure it is always so black and white?

I assert that no one is bound to obey an immoral rule ever. I have demonstrated previously why the rule is immoral.

As to the OP. Mr. Cothran was faced with an immoral rule. His company, because of venial self interest sought to deny his right to protect himself in a dangerous job where the company KNEW he very well would get robbed. Cothran ignored their immoral rule and protected himself. I would not call his act either immoral or lacking in integrity. But that's me.

My belief is that due to the downside liability wise, most companies will never allow CCW at work. They can't really be successfully sued when an employee is killed by a criminal and they know that, so for them it is a no brainer. Those who feel this is immoral may choose to disobey such a rule and not be dishonest IMHO.

I also believe that this choice is a common one we gun owners face often. Therefore worthy of our discussion which has been great BTW

[born2climb]

Funny, TG...Corrie Ten Boom came to my mind as well, along with all those who fall in her category. It is always easier to be politically correct than to stand on principle. And there will always be those who will argue the point, regardless of what the point is.

And in the words of Charley Waite (Kevin Costner, Open Range)..."Some things weigh on a man worse than dying..." In this instance, some things weigh on a man more than unemployment...I'd just lose my job before I would take the gun out of the truck. I outgrew Mother-May-I years ago.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I didn't say the word is universal. The principle is universal. I even gave examples.
We all know the difference. Arguing about cops lying to criminals is silly. Same with people hiding Jews. If those are your best arguments, you've lost the argument. Folks will just shut you off. The reasons for those things are clear beyond any common sense requirement for definition.
Just like murder is wrong but it's not wrong to kill someone in self defense. Arguing that a cop lying to a criminal means that lying is either ok or the cop is immoral is the same as arguing that either murder is ok or killing in self defense is wrong.
Pure, unadulterated silliness.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

...Likewise, Corrie ten Boom, whose family hid Jews from the Nazi's and lied about it had no integrity either.

Of course, then there is Paul Rusesabagina of Hotel Rwanda fame who saved 1,268 by hiding them in his hotel and lying to the authorities about doing so...

Originally Posted by born2climb

...Funny, TG...Corrie Ten Boom came to my mind as well, along with all those who fall in her category...

Good God! There is such a thing as a sense of proportion.

Comparing people like Corrie ten Boom and Paul Rusesabagina to the guy who lies to his boss about keeping a gun in his car in violation of company policy (to which he agreed by reason of his employment) is an insult to people like Corrie ten Boom and Paul Rusesabagina.

[born2climb]

I am self-employed...and am required by my employer to carry.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Good God! There is such a thing as a sense of proportion.

Yes, Corrie ten Boom saved lives by lying and Mr. Cothran saved his own life by refusing to follow an immoral rule. Other than the numbers involved seems about the same. Or are the lives of the hutus worth more than Mr. Cothran's?

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

The principle is universal. I even gave examples.

You said it was black and white. I showed otherwise. Now you call the examples "silly" and "we all know the difference" and that isn't much of an argument either.

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

If those are your best arguments, you've lost the argument. Folks will just shut you off.

Apparently not the case with Mr.Cothran. Tom Gresham had him on his show and people are contributing money and time to find him another job. Same same with the fellows fired by Pizza Hut who sent them into high crime areas. BTW the public pressure was so great on Pizza Hut because of that they modified their rules about delivery into high crime areas.

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

Pure, unadulterated silliness.

C'mon Brian, you can do better than that. That is no argument.

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Comparing people like Corrie ten Boom and Paul Rusesabagina to the guy who lies to his boss about keeping a gun in his car in violation of company policy (to which he agreed by reason of his employment) AND SAVED HIS OWN LIFE WITH SAID GUN is an insult to people like Corrie ten Boom and Paul Rusesabagina.

My bolding and addition to your quote, I think takes the air out of that argument. Or do you maintain Mr. Cothran's life is worth less than those Rwandans that were saved by lying?

[zxcvbob]

You bellow "sense of proportion" while comparing the extreme ends of the spectrum and conveniently ignoring the interesting middle cases -- a pizza delivery guy, or the night clerk at a large-chain convenience store or pharmacy that has a corporate "no guns" policy.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

...

My bolding and addition to your quote, I think takes the air out of that argument. Or do you maintain Mr. Cothran's life is worth less than those Rwandans that were saved by lying?...

Worth less? No.

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.

[Koda94]

IMO...

I think its a slippery slope to judge others moral actions for survival. Bottom line is each individual has to look out for themselves and there is never right or wrong answer as long as its done with integrity. The store clerk may have had no other options for employment. Lying can get you killed, or it can save your life and a person with integrity has to decide which path gets the best outcome for all parties involved.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

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.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Koda94

Lying ... or it can save your life and a person with integrity has to decide which path gets the best outcome for all parties involved.

I agree that the choice is not so clear. Good point.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

...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?...

I'm not going to let you set the boundaries for my opinions, nor will I accede to the parameters you set for the discussion.

I see Mr. Cothran as a person who, like the rest of us, has made a variety of choices in his life that put him in a particular position causing him to face particular challenges. Perhaps he could have avoided those challenges by making different choices. It's too bad that he found himself in a position in which he felt he needed to violate his commitment to his employer in order to better secure his personal safety.

I'm glad it worked out for him, but I'm also not going to fault his employer for enforcing a lawful workplace rule. His experience should, in my view, cause the employer to re-evaluate its rule, but I'm not going to put Mr. Cothran's act in the same class as those of Corrie ten Boom and Paul Rusesabagina.

[Brian Pfleuger]

You're right, TG, it's no argument at all because, as I said, it requires none but I gave you some examples anyway.

The principle is understood by the youngest children and it's understood by you too. You're either creating a Straw Man argument or, if not, no stranger on the internet will convince you of something that you've reached adulthood without understanding.

I mean, you use Corrie Ten Boom as an example? This is a woman who believed in the God of the Bible and the authority of Scripture and had no trouble lying to Nazis. A clear example that ordinary people understand the differences, nuances and common sense application.

Taking that example and applying it to such a minor question as voluntary employment with rules you don't like which do not directly endanger anyone's life, on a question that 90+% of American's never address in their entire lives anyway is just ludicrous.

[Tom Servo]

Of course, then there is Paul Rusesabagina of Hotel Rwanda fame who saved 1,268 by hiding them in his hotel and lying to the authorities about doing so.

Those acts were selfless, brave, and noble. However, if they involved a lack of honesty, "integrity" is a misnomer. If we're to bandy the word around, let's at least be clear on the meaning.

Honesty isn't always the best policy, but if I'm going to lie about something, I don't really have much of a right to ride my high horse around and let it poop on the carpet.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

I'm not going to let you set the boundaries for my opinions, nor will I accede to the parameters you set for the discussion.

Ok fine. However, with great respect I think you are dodging the question a bit. Nevertheless, Frank this is a real issue many (not you or I) face in their lives. Venial work rules that protect the company at the expense of the employee. However, since you don't condemn Mr. Cothran's actions then I won't press.

Where I will disagree with you is that I do fault the company for enforcement of a legal yet immoral work rule. If you listen to Mr. Cothran's interview with Tom Gresham Oct 20, 2013 you will see that Mr.Cothran was faced with imminent danger and reacted to that threat.

The only reason I bring up ten Boom and others is simply to show that it may be permissible to lie and not be dishonest.

However, let's discuss the criteria for that and rather than use extremes of genocide lets discuss everyday life. And I mean concerning people NOT like you and me who really do have choices.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

You're right, TG, it's no argument at all because,

Brian, we have argued this before you were on staff. However, as I said before your contention that what you believe is "obvious" and "that a child" understands it, is rather insulting and avoiding the question.

Mr. Cothran (if you have read the article and listened to his interview with Tom Gresham) was faced with a real imminent threat and so are others in similar positions today.

By the way, many feel (St. Augustine among the first) that self defense is a moral act and that the bible condones it so Mr. Cothran's choice was no less noble than ten Booms. He choose to protect his own life in contravention of an immoral work rule.

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

Taking that example and applying it to such a minor question as voluntary employment with rules you don't like which do not directly endanger anyone's life, on a question that 90+% of American's never address in their entire lives anyway is just ludicrous.

This is just a dismissal rather than an answer. Protecting ones life is not a "minor question" or this forum would not exist. Further, my issue with the rule is not that "I don't like it" as if it were some type of dress code! I assert it is immoral. Big difference and you too know that.

Also, your "90% never address this" is pure speculation and irrelevant. Even if the percentage is lower the issue is the same.

I find your arguments rather lazy. Let's stick to the criteria of when it would be moral to disregard an immoral work rule.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Honesty isn't always the best policy, but if I'm going to lie about something, I don't really have much of a right to ride my high horse around and let it poop on the carpet.

So was Mr. Cothran right to do what he did or not? Was honesty the best policy in his case? How is that pooping on a carpet? I don't get that.

[44 AMP]

I consider an employer's no gun on premises rule to be immoral, only if they do nothing else to provide for employee safety.

I spent 30 years working for contractors at locations where it was absolutely verboten to possess arms, ammo, explosives, "dangerous weapons" (and don't get me started on that particular stupidity of phrasing) or even a knife with a blade more than 4".

Never considered it immoral in the least. Of course, we also had professional security, armed with Uzis, M16s, M60s, H&Ks, a helicopter and an armored car (the kind meant for combat, not the kind meant for transporting money).

People do hazardous things for money every day. Our right to arms does not trump another's property rights. We are NOT free citizens while we are on another person's dime. We are employees. We are not slaves. There are always choices.

If you stay at a job where you are uncomfortable about your safety, because you are not allowed to be armed, isn't that, bottom line, your greed triumphing over your other principles?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I consider an employer's no gun on premises rule to be immoral, only if they do nothing else to provide for employee safety.

You are absolutely right here. I am sorry if I did not make that clear from the get go. You are not stirring the pot.

Yes, I too worked in a compound for 5 years that was guarded by armed Marines while at the same time we were in very close proximity to a VERY bad neighborhood. I would never have tried to carry there but I felt very safe there.

My mantra is: If you invoke disarmament you must insure it.

I do disagree with you that "we always have choices" because a "choice" like not carry and be robbed or quit and starve" is not a real choice.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

So was Mr. Cothran right to do what he did or not? Was honesty the best policy in his case? How is that pooping on a carpet? I don't get that.

That's really a false dichotomy. Under Mr. Cothan's circumstances and given how it turned our for him, he might appropriately be spared obloquy (and/or additional time in Purgatory, depending on your beliefs). That doesn't make the act of violating an employer's lawful policy "right" by excusing one from the ordinary employment related consequences of the act.

A rough parallel might be found in the application of the legal doctrine of necessity as a defense against tort liability. Under certain circumstances, the law will recognize a privilege to do something which would violate the property rights of another. But the circumstances must be extreme, and the person invoking the claim of necessity must still pay for the damage he did.

So if you're stuck in a blizzard and would surely die without shelter, you may without moral fault or guilt trespass on someone's land and break into his unoccupied house. But you will still have to pay for the damage you caused.

[manta49]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I consider an employer's no gun on premises rule to be immoral, only if they do nothing else to provide for employee safety.

The employer might see not having firearms on the premises as providing employee safety. Example employee going on shooting spree after being sacked for example or another employee being injured by a negligent discharge. Millions of Americans probably the majority go to work unarmed.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

A rough parallel might be found in the application of the legal doctrine of necessity as a defense against tort liability. Under certain circumstances, the law will recognize a privilege to do something which would violate the property rights of another. But the circumstances must be extreme, and the person invoking the claim of necessity must still pay for the damage he did.

So how did you determine that Cothran met that criteria or did you? Cothran caused no damage. The crook beat feet when he saw the gun. But Cothran lost his job.

Since Cothran had good reason to fear robbery based on the facts of the case is he then morally justified to ignore company policy and carry?

[Tom Servo]

So was Mr. Cothran right to do what he did or not?

He felt his actions were necessary. Many of us would agree, and I'm glad he's OK.

That said, if we're talking about lying to an employer, the word "integrity" is especially inapt.

is he then morally justified to ignore company policy and carry?

The question implies a fixed and arbitrary standard. To some folks, he might have been justified. To others, not so much.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

So how did you determine that Cothran met that criteria or did you? Cothran caused no damage. The crook beat feet when he saw the gun. But Cothran lost his job.

Since Cothran had good reason to fear robbery based on the facts of the case is he then morally justified to ignore company policy and carry?

I said a "rough parallel"; that is not the same as an "exact paralllel." In Mr. Cothan's case he bears the natural consequence of violating an employment rule, i. e., loss of his job.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So what I seem to be getting from Tom Servo and Frank Ettin is that while they don't really like lying (I don't either) and believe that one should tell the truth, there may be times that lying is permissible?

It also seems that both of you seem to not think Mr. Cothran was dishonest in ignoring a company policy and are happy with the outcome (not sure about his being fired).

So, I conclude that maybe you guys like how this turned out but don't want to be seen as endorsing wholesale lying to an employer?

Now Brian seems a bit more rigid than you both, but I think we (Frank, Tom and I) may have a serious case of agreement going on here?