Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
There is no ethical obligation to follow it if the preservation of life is placed above the preservation of property. In that case, the former supersedes the latter.
Concealed means concealed
- Thread starter FNMatt
- Start date
- Status
Loosedhorse
member
If there is nothing "forcing" you into that store--"We have the only food for hundreds of miles, right here!"--then you have a choice to remain armed outside, to disarm and enter...
Or dishonestly to enter armed. I get that some of you think that choosing optional dishonesty is ethical, but I don't. To each his own.
Or dishonestly to enter armed. I get that some of you think that choosing optional dishonesty is ethical, but I don't. To each his own.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
As I said before, I don't tend to worry a lot or even think about other people's ethics or morals. There is legal and illegal. Then there are possible social consequences. Beyond that, the personal demons each person has to struggle with within themselves are beyond my ability to control, change, or even fully understand.
Dilige, et quod vis fac.
MachIVshooter
Member
So, by extension, we can deduce that you believe in being 100% honest and forthcoming, no matter the potential consequences, and even when keeping things to yourself hurts no one else?
If a police officer tells you that he clocked you at 43 in a 35, but you know you were actually doing 51, do you tell him and risk the bigger ticket? Because, after all, you're being dishonest if you don't. It's not like telling him the truth will help him, and it may hurt you, but at least your not choosing "optional dishonesty".............
Me? Just as CCW against a silly sign's policy doesn't bother me, my moral compass doesn't spin wildly if I keep my mouth shut and accept the smaller ticket.
I think morality can be defined similarly. If something you do benefits you or others and negatively impacts no one, what's the problem?
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
I went somewhere on business the other day and a big sign on the door said:
METAL DETECTORS IN USE.
ALL PERSONS ENTERING THIS PROPERTY ARE SUBJECT TO SEARCH.
So I turned around and took my Emerson back to my car before I went in.
I had a choice, leave my weapons outside and make the sales call or to not go in. I chose the latter.
METAL DETECTORS IN USE.
ALL PERSONS ENTERING THIS PROPERTY ARE SUBJECT TO SEARCH.
So I turned around and took my Emerson back to my car before I went in.
I had a choice, leave my weapons outside and make the sales call or to not go in. I chose the latter.
MachIVshooter
Member
And those were the only two choices you had because of the screening they used. It's not a question of your "moral" decision to leave the weapon behind; You couldn't bring it in, period. If circumstances dictate that you can't make the decision to obey or disobey a sign, right/wrong or moral/immoral don't factor in at all.
hermannr
Member
Owen, I do not see anything there that said you could not carry? That you might be searched and that they had metal detectors available, nowithstanding? If the had posted "no firearms allowed" and what you stated, I would have done as you did. However, if there was no "no firearms allowed" sign, I would have entered. Then if they decided that they wanted to search me, I would not have submitted and left.
What type of business was this, and did they have permenently installed detectors like at the Airport? Or just wands, that they would use indiscriminately if they so wished.
I don't know what "Emerson" you had, but most electronics would set off a metal detector anyway.
What type of business was this, and did they have permenently installed detectors like at the Airport? Or just wands, that they would use indiscriminately if they so wished.
I don't know what "Emerson" you had, but most electronics would set off a metal detector anyway.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Emerson is a knife.
Time to close this one yet?, when I sart seeing, if this and if that, I get seasick. You can take things Literally, Ethically, Spiritually, practiclly, Legally, or any combination of the group, or add a few more. The combination makes for an earthshattering amount of ways to look at life. It's up to the individual to interpret what he sees and act accordinglly, not to try to convince others that they should do things his way, that's just naive.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And the largest irony is that the choir being preached to is made up of those least likely to do anyone any harm whatsoever with their sidearm. None of us is actually naive enough to believe that a person of ill intent -- the mugger, robber, rapist, murderer, etc. -- is going to be compelled to follow our request and disarm because we wish they would (...and just look at our lovely sign!), so the calls for "ethical" living apply only to those who DON'T pose any risks to those around them.
It does begin to sound eerily similar to the eternal drumbeat we've heard from others since about 1934 and redoubled in 1968, that placing controls on the law-abiding folks is the path to public safety.
...
What is the goal of this exercise? Promoting safety? Then figure out a way to restrict what those who don't value human life will do. Or is it just "control?" The promoting safety angle is a farce. The "control" angle is ineffective, at best, and irrelevant at worst.
Last edited:
MachIVshooter
Member
Why? It's civil, on-topic, and gives lots of different viewpoints and reasoning for people deciding either way.
When it's time, those with the power will make it happen
Loosedhorse
member
Cool. I left the Home Depot today, and found that I had an item I hadn't paid for. Under a big bag that neither I or the checker shifted; found it when unloading the cart into the car. I was already out of the store, with the checker's blessing. No one around...
But I walked back in and paid $5.
Then, sir, don't even talk about ethics, if they don't exist for you.
In the same way that, since you believe you must go armed, you must believe that you will at all times and in all places be attacked. Tell you what, if don't misgeneralize me, I won't misgeneralize you.
All ethical behaviors carry a cost. Many years ago, I was in a lunch line. The guy in front of me grabbed a cheeseburger, a luxury item that cost $0.40 more than the hamburger I grabbed. I follow him to the check-out, and the girl there looks at his tray and sees the top of a bun.
"Hamburger?" she asks. There is an almost imperceptible pause, then, "Yes." After he left, I told her, "Just so you know, that was a cheeseburger. And the price of honor these days is 40 cents."
She smiled.
So, perhaps like others here, I don't much care what you do, or how you rationalize it to make it "okay." Just, please, don't try to tell me that choosing to be dishonest is ethical.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Gym said:
You can "close" it anytime by just not clicking on this thread.
You can "close" it anytime by just not clicking on this thread.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And? Do you want a cookie?
I think most of us have probably had that exact experience before. Each of us has some kind of internal compass. Our demons to appease or contend with as I mentioned before.That's not all I said, and I didn't indicate that I have no sense of personal ethics. I said there are personal "demons" each person has to appease. You and I apparently share the one about being scrupulously honest in hardware stores. Cool! Maybe we're related.
All that just to impress a check out girl? Did you land a date? Or was it more of a power thing over the other guy? Seems tattling on someone would be mighty unethical -- for some folks. (Not me, I don't care.)
Careful -- the southbound end of your high horse is showing!
More seriously though, you're casting aspersions here that are unnecessary. If you feel you're entering into an unwritten and unspoken social contract with a property owner that you won't do something, that's your cross to bear. As you said, such decisions come with costs. In this case, the cost is being unarmed when it might not be wise to be so, because all those nasty guys who don't follow the owner's rules -- or society's laws, either -- are armed and may be dangerous. Understanding that to be absolutely true, I can't see disarming as a wise choice, whether your personal ethical compass spins that way or not. But I won't insult anyone who feels compelled to do so.
Loosedhorse
member
Nice tone for a moderator to set, don't you think? You're getting personal.
Actually, I think your words above betray you: you've certainly tried to be insulting. Again, nice tone for a moderator. Disingenuous, too. But perhaps that behavior is on-topic.
No, sir. The cost implied is not the cost of you going unarmed: it is the cost of you not entering. Apparently too much for you to bear...or consider.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Oh, please don't take my comments as personal -- or serious commentary on your ethics! I don't think you were trying to impress the check-out girl. Just pointing out that "ethics" are very different for each person and that you certainly are casting aspersions through your tone, as well as introducing oddly non-topical anecdotes to prove yourself to be an "ethical" person by some definition of your own, when no one had accused you of not being so!
I believe you. You are an ethical person. You may or may not meet my definition of ethical, but that doesn't matter. I may not meet yours. Again, that's wholly irrelevant.
Again, though, you are attempting to be condescending ("too much to bear ... or consider") and it isn't necessary. You've established your ethics. Be confident enough in your own choices to allow others to make differing ones without feeling the need to validate or condemn those choices.
With greatest humility, I mean no insult. If you don't see the humor and gently chiding truth of my comments, then I apologize and bid you be at peace.
I believe you. You are an ethical person. You may or may not meet my definition of ethical, but that doesn't matter. I may not meet yours. Again, that's wholly irrelevant.
The cost may be any number of things. Your need to enter may be greater or lesser. Your perception of risk may be lesser or greater. Your belief in an unwritten/unspoken social contract may be compelling or non-existent.
Again, though, you are attempting to be condescending ("too much to bear ... or consider") and it isn't necessary. You've established your ethics. Be confident enough in your own choices to allow others to make differing ones without feeling the need to validate or condemn those choices.
With greatest humility, I mean no insult. If you don't see the humor and gently chiding truth of my comments, then I apologize and bid you be at peace.
Loosedhorse
member
If I may suggest, if you find an anecdote odd, ask why it was posted rather than assume you know. Prove I'm ethical? This is the internet; I can't prove anything. Perhaps you might reflect that there are many ways that one might have handled the cheeseburger situation; my way generated a smile, and that choice may perhaps say something about what I value.
What I was trying to do with the story was point out that ethics typically imposes a cost, sometimes a very small one, that the occasional person finds too high.
I thank you, but of course I'm simply human, and I have my hypocrisies and blindspots. The hardware story? There was a part of me kicking myself for paying the money--how's that for ethical? (Or for high-horsing!) I do try to be very conscious of why I do what I do, and whether I'm "letting myself off the hook" too easily--because I think we all do from time to time (I apologize for the presumption).
Here, I responded to the implication that because either choosing to go unarmed or choosing to not enter would be harder (more inconvenient or more "risky") than choosing to enter armed, that last was the right answer; in fact, the ethical thing can be the more expensive, or harder choice. I think it usually is.
I understand that you think you were not being condescending and that I was. It is in the end your decision as to whether moderators should project a higher standard, and whether any insult, if followed by a
,, or then becomes "alright."And no, it did not seem to me that in your response you were even considering not entering, as you only mentioned the risk of going unarmed. I was stuck by that: if it's in fact so risky, why again are you entering?
So I pointed it out.
Last edited:
MachIVshooter
Member
"do you carry a pistol because you're execting trouble?"
"No, if I were expecting trouble, I'd have brought my rifle"
Need I say more?
Why don't we all do what we want to do, and stop trying to convince others that they should do what we think they should do.
After all isn't that what this all comes down to, it's not going to change anyones mind so what sence does it make to continue going "tit for tat". I am not leaving this discussion with a different way of living my life as I am sure some of the guys I know from these discussions aren't either so why the constant bantor. It's just going round and round covering basically the same points in different scenarios and stories. But nobody is leaving here with a different view on how to conduct themselves.
I guess if someone is getting something from it, then by all means continue.
After all isn't that what this all comes down to, it's not going to change anyones mind so what sence does it make to continue going "tit for tat". I am not leaving this discussion with a different way of living my life as I am sure some of the guys I know from these discussions aren't either so why the constant bantor. It's just going round and round covering basically the same points in different scenarios and stories. But nobody is leaving here with a different view on how to conduct themselves.
I guess if someone is getting something from it, then by all means continue.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
The examples offered required a minimum of cost to the person to follow. A parallel to the sacrifice of the means to preserve one's life is not necessarily possible, unless we assume them to be similar enough in value.
A system of ethics can exist in which the value of a decision is not based on the expense to yourself. A proof of existence can be obtained by searching this forum for the phrase "socialism". Some people do not have ethics systems which are founded heavily in the concept of self-flagellation.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
I have sometimes been surprised by the discussions which resulted in a modification of my position. On the other hand, many have provided numerous opportunities for introspection and the reinforcement of current beliefs. Ultimately, it's about the journey rather than the destination. If not one person's opinion has changed over the course of the discussion, it still isn't a loss for me.
MachIVshooter
Member
If you're so bothered by this thread, then stop clicking on it. It's not like we're having this discourse in your living room.
You know this to be fact?
If nothing else, entertainment and brain exercise. But if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that some people haven't altered their stance. I haven't, but I'm one of those who has thought this through from every angle multiple times. Others may have given it little consideration prior to reading this, and may have formed a more solid opinion based on what they've read.
Regardless, this forum is nothing without discussion, so why do you want us to cease so badly? That's as bad as the people who immediately chime in with "use the search function". If we didn't rehash topics, there'd be virtually no activity on this board.
Loosedhorse
member
Of course. Your pat and canned answer does not explain why, armed or not, one would choose to enter a place that one has judged as particularly dangerous.
So, which is it: places with "no guns" signs are particularly dangerous, and so should be avoided; or they're not?
If someone were to in fact bring his unconcealed rifle into a "No guns" store as you seem to suggest, well, that would at least be honest defiance of the sign--rather than sneaky, secretive defiance--and also, it's consistent with the increased threat assessment that's been suggested.
If I have misunderstood you, and you meant by your words that bringing in a rifle is exactly what you plan to do on seeing a "no guns sign," well, good for you!
Again, I understand that many prefer to stick with the "I won't disarm for a sign!" line; that's easier to defend than "If I and my gun are not welcome here, I refuse to go elsewhere where they are!"
Two responses. First, an accurate assessment of the "cost" of going unarmed would be the value of the loss incurred (might be life, property, or injury) times the probability of the loss unarmed minus the probability that the loss would occur even if you were armed (which is not zero). Yes, I know: your life is invaluable to you; for the sake of the calculation, ask your insurance company--they have a different opinion.
Second, again, no one is asking you to go unarmed; they're asking you to walk or drive a few blocks to the similar store without such a sign. Big cost?
I did not suggest that the value was so based. I did suggest that any cost to a given decision will make that less likely to be chosen. I suspect then that situations in which "the right thing" is also the "cheapest thing" result in no need for discussion, or varying opinion; but those which have one "cheapest" solution, and a different "most ethical" solution--now we've got a chance to weigh things carefully. If we want to.
It is my impression you are not alone.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That's absurd. Every place carries the possibility for violent encounters and the possible need for effective self-defense tools. If we knew where an attack would happen, we would stay home. But we don't and have to go about our lives as ready as we can make ourselves for whatever may come, when and wherever it may come. It isn't a matter of deciding that a place is too dangerous. It is simply facing the fact that danger exists more or less universally. Hence, we carry a handgun for times when we expect no trouble at all -- but yet trouble may find us. If trouble can be reasonably expected, we'll make other plans.
Again, that depends. If there are two identical establishments within a reasonable distance, the relatively low cost to you -- and the desired economic impact on those establishments -- may warrant a change in direction. But that's not always the case. Having to drive to another city or state for what you need might dramatically shift that balance.
But you certainly own the moral high ground, don't you? Maybe that should read, "I could care less about what you think is morally correct." All this emotionally weighted talk of "sneaky, dishonest, secretive" actions robs this debate of any grounding whatsoever. Insert the words "legal," "discreet," "law-abiding," or "responsible" for each of your "sneakys," "dishonests," and "secretives" and we could have a rational discussion. Otherwise it might as well be a religious debate -- without both parties believing the same basic tenets, it's pointless.
- Status
Similar threads
