Focus on the reading \"Is Business Bluffing Ethical?\" by Albert Carr. In your p

Question

Focus on the reading "Is Business Bluffing Ethical?" by Albert Carr. In your paper, please include/respond to the follow items:
1) Briefly summarize Carr's justification of bluffing in business.
2) Consider Carr's argument in light of Utilitarian and Deontological (Kantian) ethics:
(a) Would Utilitarian ethics accept Carr's justification for bluffing in business? Why or why not?
(b) Would Deontological (Kantian) ethics accept Carr's justification for bluffing in business? Why or why not?
3) Are you personally convinced that bluffing in business is an ethically acceptable practice? Why or why not?

Reading 2.3 Is Business Bluffing Ethical?" Albert Z. Carr In the following classic reading, Albert Carr compares business to poker and offers a jus tification for business bluffing. Mr. Carr provides a different perspective from the pre- vious discussion with its various models and categories geared more toward absolutes. A respected businessman with whom I discussed the theme of this article remarked with some heat, "You mean to say you're going to encourage men to bluff? Why, bluffing is nothing more than a form of lying! You're advising them to li I agreed that the basis of private morality is a respect for truth and that the closer a businessman comes to the truth, the more he deserves respect. At the same time, I sug- gested that most bluffing in business might be regarded simply as game strategy-much like bluffing in poker, which does not reflect on the morality of the bluffer I quoted Henry Taylor, the British statesman who pointed out that "falsehood ceases to be falsehood when it is understood on all sides that the truth is not expected to be spoken"-an exact description of bluffing in poker, diplomacy, and business. I cited the analogy of the criminal court, where the criminal is not expected to tell the truth when he pleads "not guilty." Everyone from the judge down takes it for granted that the job of the defendant's attorney is to get his client off, not to reveal the truth; and this is con sidered ethical practice. I mentioned Representative Omar Burleson, the Democrat from Texas, who was quoted as saying, in regard to the ethics of Congress, "Ethics is a barrel of worms"S-a pungent summing up of the problem of deciding who is ethical in po litics. I reminded my friend that millions of businessmen feel constrained every day to say yes to their bosses when they secretly believe no and that this is generally accepted as permissible strategy when the alternative might be the loss of a job. The essential point, I said, is that the ethics of business are games ethics, different from the ethics of religion. e remained unconvinced. Referring to the company of which he is president, he declared: "Maybe that's good enough for some businessmen, but I can tell you that we pride ourselves on our ethics. In thirty years not one customer has ever questioned my word or asked to check our figures. We're loyal to our customers and fair to our suppliers. I regard my handshake on a deal as a contract. I've never entered into price-fixing schemes with my competitors. I've never allowed my salesmen to spread injurious rumors about other com- panies. Our union contract is the best in our industry. And, if I do say so myself, our ethical standards are of the highest!" He really was saying, without realizing it, that he was living up to the ethical stan- dards of the business game-which are a far cry from those of private life. Like a

Explanation / Answer

1) Briefly summarize Carr's justification of bluffing in business.

Albert Carr compares business to poker and provides a justification of bluffing in business. Corporate executives often force the executives to be dishonor to their profession. Business is compared with that of the poker game. Business bluffing refers to bluffing in the game and does not refer to the personal morals and principles. For example, being truthful is being personally moral. However, the strategy of the poker game is to lie which is in contrast to the personal moral and does not define a person. Thus, business is a game.

The Poker analogy states that there are elements of chance to win, knowledge of the psychology of the parties involved is important, knowledge of the rule is very important for the success of the game, the parties should be self-disciplined and take a bold front.

Carr also proposes to discard the golden rule. In other words, the private citizen is not a business game player. The change in role refers to the change in the ethical standards and preferences. Business standards and the context to make decisions are way different from other ordinary moral standards.

To conclude, business does not make laws and the decisions are strategic decisions as they are based on the situation. Lying is different from deception. Hence, in business do not tell malicious lies. Political and business commitments are different from personal integrity. According to Carr, business bluffing is ethical.

2) Consider Carr's argument in light of Utilitarian and Deontological (Kantian) ethics:
(a) Would Utilitarian ethics accept Carr's justification for bluffing in business? Why or why not?

The Utilitarian Ethical Theory views an action as right or wrong based only on the consequences. Hence, the theory takes into consideration of other’s interest rather than one’s own interest. If business bluffing is beneficial to more people rather than one’s own interest, then business bluffing would be accepted by the Utilitarian’s.

(b) Would Deontological (Kantian) ethics accept Carr's justification for bluffing in business? Why or why not?

The Kantian Ethical Theory considers an action as right or wrong without refereeing to the consequences. Since bluffing in business is an ethically wrong act irrespective of the fact that it would benefit others, then Deontological (Kantian) ethics would not accept Carr’s justification for bluffing in business.

3) Are you personally convinced that bluffing in business is an ethically acceptable practice? Why or why not?

Personally speaking, bluffing in business is not an ethically acceptable practice even if it benefits others. This is because it is the violation of the professional code of conduct. Customers and the society believe that the business is truthful and follows the ethical code of conduct. If there is bluffing in business then you lose the trust of the stakeholders. Reputation will be lost in the long-run. Bluffing would be revealed to the world any time. It is difficult for a business to build its regime and gain a stronghold in the industry as before. Hence, bluffing in business is not an ethically acceptable practice.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

---