Politics & Philosophy by Dr. Martin D. Hash, Esq.
It's unconscionable for you to sign yourself into slavery or indentured servitude so no court will enforce such a contract, but a Conduct Agreement, which is almost the same thing, is not the same because it isn't about forcing you to remain under contract but instead to dismiss you from one; you don't act like someone tells you to act, you're fired. This makes a Conduct Agreement very ethically challenging; you are being held to the subjective moral tenets of someone else, even in your private life. As problematic as this concept sounds, there are some professions, being a product spokesman for example, where a very narrow Conduct Agreement is appropriate; however, that gray line can easily turn into something more sinister. For example, when an employee's conduct has little to do with a company's reputation yet they have to maintain some personal code, possibly religious; perhaps your company may want you to pray, or say the Pledge of Allegiance. If so, is it okay for them to scrutinize your personal sexual habits?
Considering the ramifications, a Conduct Agreement is actually compelled conduct, including Speech, which seems unacceptable from a liberty perspective. No realm; not business, not education, not politics, should be able to compel conduct in anyone's private life, not just the Constitutional ramifications, but because it exposes people's reputations and livelihoods to the banal, subjective, selfish interests of others who would benefit from turning you in. It becomes a society of watching over your shoulder, and suspecting your neighbor. Your private conduct is not up for anyone else to agree with.
Categories | PRay TeLL, Dr. Hash
Filetype: MP3 - Size: 2.53MB - Duration: 2:46 m (128 kbps 44100 Hz)