In 1968, Albert Carr authored an article entitled "Is Business Bluffing Ethical?" which was published in the Harvard Business Review. In it, Carr argued that business ethics are fundamentally different from the ethics of "everyday life" because business is akin to a game, particularly poker. Here is the beginning of the article to give you the foundation of his argument:
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 lie!"
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 suggested 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 considered 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" —a pungent summing up of the problem of deciding who is ethical in politics.
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 game ethics, different from the ethics of religion….
Given this brief context, what do you think? Are business ethics really just game ethics?
Ethics in a business are different from the ethics of a religion. This is because in business ethics might mean doing the right thing for the business . This means planning for the business, working for the business and negotiating for the business. Doing this in the right way so that no surroundings are effected is business ethics. This might even include some lies or other strategies which might be false in religious ethics. But business ethics are meant to do justice to the business in a fair way and to do the business in a legal and respectful manner even when we have to play a game with others like competitors and do some bluffs to make our business succeed. Therefore business ethics are really just game ethics.
In 1968, Albert Carr authored an article entitled "Is Business Bluffing Ethical?" which was published in...
Please read the article and answer about questions. You and the Law Business and law are inseparable. For B-Money, the two predictably merged when he was negotiat- ing a deal for his tracks. At other times, the merger is unpredictable, like when your business faces an unexpected auto accident, product recall, or government regulation change. In either type of situation, when business owners know the law, they can better protect themselves and sometimes even avoid the problems completely. This chapter...
Based on the article "Proxy War," create your own argument that either supports or counters the author's argument (you either agree with the author's conclusion [support his argument] or you disagree with the author's conclusion [counter his argument]). Be sure you are not just developing your argument with the opinion that you already have. This means you must first recognize your initial point of view and your own assumptions about the topic, so you can approach it with an open...