Business Ethics: Case 8.4 - Have Gun, Will Travel...to Work

This case study revolves around the morality and legality of employees parking cars with guns in them at the company parking lot. It discusses the laws regarding guns and private property, and the utilitarian and virtue ethics perspectives on the matter.

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
Business Ethics
Case 8.4: Have Gun, Will Travel…to Work
23-Feb-18
(Student Details: )

Business Ethics
Generally, the laws regarding guns are very confusing due to the lack of clarity in when
these would apply and when these would not. The regulations of both Federal and State cover
loopholes for gun placement in the car in comparison to gun placement in car while the gun is
loaded, and in these two scenarios being present on private property. This case study revolves
around these very aspects, particularly in context of the businesses and gun in private parking.
(1)
Even though holding a gun is a legal right, I believe it is not morally correct to own a
gun. This is particularly in light of the recent events which we come across on daily basis, where
gunmen make use of this right, to wreak havoc on the general public, be it at school or the
supermarket. Even though some have justified holding guns for protecting themselves, but for
those reasons, there is the law enforcement. The utilitarian view is that such actions have to be
undertaken which maximize the utility for the majority (Bykvist, 2010). When it comes to gun
holding, the majority is not benefitted. In order to protect the individuals, there are different
categories of law enforcement, police and other security measures put in place. To justify safety
of oneself as the reason of holding a gun is thus immoral.
This is particularly true due to the problem presented when a person parks a car with
loaded gun, in the private owned parking lot of another person, particularly when the wishes of
the owners are not upheld. Immanuel Kant gave the golden rule under the duties of categorical
imperative, where he stated that the individuals should treat others in the way they want to be
treated (Bowie, 2017). So, when a person does not pay respect to the owner of the parking lot,
they invite the chances of being disrespected and be ignored as well. Even when a person has the
legal right of owning a gun, it is restricted to public places and not private places. Thus, it is
Page 2

Business Ethics
crucial to respect the wishes of the parking lot owner in terms of bringing the loaded gun to their
property, otherwise it would be deemed as an immoral act.
(2)
When it comes to the morality or legality of the employees right to park cars with guns in
them at the company parking lot, it can go two ways. The first way is where this is deemed as
moral, in terms of the security and safety of the employees. This view also carries with it the
legality of this action, where the company policy allows for the employees to carry guns with
them and leave it in parked cars.
However, this is the view which I do not favour, and the second way suits my viewpoint.
This view presents that it is immoral for the employees to park cars with guns in them in the
parking lot of the company. This is because the companies do indulge in ensuring the safety of
their employees. In this regard, they not only install cameras in the parking lot, but also have
security patrolling in the parking lots. The legality of this matter depends on the company policy.
But the morality dictates that this is not moral. The reason for this is that even when the
companies do not have proper security measures, the same can be brought to their attention, in
place of carrying guns which could result in creating security concerns.
Another view which supports this contention is that when a person leaves a loaded gun in
their car, and it is misused, who will have to bear the liability. Would the company be made
liable, as the incident occurred in their parking, or would the employee be made liable, as it was
their gun? Even when the employee is made liable, vicarious liability would make the company
liable.
Page 3

Business Ethics
(3)
The state and the federal laws give protection to the right of bearing arms (Shaw, 2016).
Even though the private companies do have the freedom of making and implementing their own
rules and regulations, the United States law speaks for itself. In the recent decades, a number of
states have adopted the concealed carry statute, in addition to the parking lot statutes or
workplace protection which limits the right of the employers to stop the employees from being in
possession of firearms even on the company property. This allows the workers to have guns and
store them in their private vehicles when they are at work. Where an employee, official, or
employer feels that there is an imminent threat due to the presence of weapon on the premises,
the same has to be reported immediately as an act of violence or a threat. The workplace requires
policies to be applied for proper procedure to follow when a workplace violence or threat
incident is reported.
In my view, I do support the notion of the state legislature to be involved in this regard.
There are situations where the matter can be harmoniously solved between the employees and
the company, but this is not the case always. Where the state legislatures bring clarity to the
matter, the employees would not have to track down the policies of the company and to contend
against it as the state legislature would make it clear that the particular thing is allowed or not.
Though, this does raise questions on the rights of the companies in handling what they do
in their private areas. It would be like infringement of right of the company to dictate their
workplace. To counter this point, one can claim that each law which dictates the workplace
conduct is thus an infringement of right of the company. For instance, the prohibition of racial
discrimination at workplace can also be cited as an infringement of company’s freedom to
Page 4

Business Ethics
conduct its business. Thus, the best option is for the state legislatures to get involved and bring a
solution to this problem.
(4)
Where the company does not permit their employees to bring and keep guns in their
parked cars in the parking lot, it does not seem justifiable to bring in the guns at workplace, till
the time the company allows the individual to carry a gun at their workplace. Where the
individual brings the gun to workplace without these permissions, it would not be against the
law, but also would be immoral. Even though some may advocate that bringing guns to
workplace by employees is a step take towards their safety. But, one cannot deny that this would
be violation of the right of the other employees to be provided with a safe working environment.
This is particularly true from the utilitarian viewpoint, where the good of the majority is
to be given supremacy, and such actions are to be undertaken which maximize the happiness of
the majority (Mill, 2017). In order to give the employees the trust and safety at workplace, it is
crucial for them to be assured that they would not have to look over their shoulder for a possible
misuse of gun at workplace. When the virtue ethics are applied here, it requires the showcasing
of virtues like justness, and fairness (Winter, 2011). In order to be fair to the other employees at
the workplace, and to be just towards them, it thus becomes crucial for the companies to choose
if they can allow their employees to bring guns to the workplace or not.
Page 5

Business Ethics
References
Bowie, N. E. (2017). Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bykvist, K. (2010). Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Mill, J.S. (2017). Utilitarianism. Dublin, OH: Coventry House Publishing.
Shaw, W. H. (2016). Business ethics: A textbook with cases (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage
Learning.
Winter, M. (2011). Rethinking Virtue Ethics. New York: Springer.
Page 6