The "something" being imposed is the employer's sense of right and wrong.
Only if the employer is using actual compulsion to push the sense of right and wrong. My employers refusal to buy me a Ferrari, because of its sense of right and wrong (or for any other reason), is no more imposing that sense on me, then you deciding not to buy me a Ferrari, because of some disagreement we had on SI, would be imposing your views or opinion on me.
Substitute something cheaper than a Ferrari into that so that the money is trivial and it's even more obviously an imposition.
If I considered not buying something for someone because of some disagreement or moral view, to be an imposition (and I think its unreasonable to do think that), then to the extent the expense was more trivial, the imposition would be smaller, not greater. Buying or not buying me a Ferrari, based on what I do or don't do, could affect my behavior. Buying or not buying me a pack of gum, not so much.
-----
im·pose
2.
to put or set by or as if by authority: to impose one's personal preference on others.
The second part of the definition is a tautology. The first part doesn't imply that not paying for something for someone is putting or setting anything on them. Those terms are essentially synonyms, they don't address the controversy. If its not imposing its not putting or setting on someone, you don't normally make an effective argument for the concept, by changing the word you use to describe the concept. This isn't an issue where I'm saying its not imposing because I don't like the word "imposing" (either in general or in this context), I don't think the meaning applies in this context. For a definition to get past that it would have to be a definition that amounted to a totally different concept, not different words for the same idea. |
