TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> It's not hypocrisy to say you believe something is
> unsafe, and to do it anyway. It's hypocrisy to say
> a thing is unsafe **and that you believe people should
> not behave in an unsafe manner** and then to do the thing
> you believe unsafe.
OK, so far you're paraphrasing what I said in the post you
quoted, so we seem to agree.
> Or, it's not hypocrisy to break the law, even knowingly.
> Rather, it's hypocrisy to say/believe that breaking
> the law is wrong (note, if you meant "wrong" as
> "technically
> incorrect", and not as "morally wrong", then I
> misunderstood
> you)...
Well, like I said in my post, I didn't know we were talking
about morals. So yes, I think you did misunderstand. Rules
aren't automatically "good" or "evil" just because they are
rules, no matter how much one protests otherwise.
> I still think Andrew did the morally right thing --
> completing
> the contract -- and that actions he performed to get there
>
> (as he described them) were either moral or amoral, but
> certainly
> not immoral... i.e., not "wrong".
My speed limit analogy was not referring to morals, it was
referring to doing something that you *know* you're not
supposed to be doing (because it's against "the rules," not
because it's immoral) and then claiming you had every right
to do it simply because it helped you accomplish something
you wanted to accomplish. I wonder if Andy would have
tolerated such actions if the shoe was on the other foot?
(Yes, I know he clarified his post to assure us it was no
big deal... if he'd been as clear in his original post, I'm
sure we wouldn't be having this conversation, but then he
also would have missed out on a lot of attention, and
wouldn't *that* be sad...)
> No more so than if he'd
> been exceeding a posted speed limit.
Which is of course, not immoral, but still illegal, and
therefore, according to one definition, wrong.
Tracy
--
======================================================
Tracy Boyington mailto:tracy_boyington -at- okvotech -dot- org
Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education
Stillwater, Oklahoma http://www.okvotech.org/cimc
======================================================
