Ethical Theory & Business

Carr’s “we don’t make the laws” theory of ethics, first published in his 1968 article ‘Is Business Bluffing Ethical’, provides a view of business ethics that contrasts many other ethical theories. In his article, Carr highlights the distinction between the standard of ethics held by business and those of the various churches (cited in Terry et al 2007, p.144) The key to understanding why this distinction exists is that different situations such as that of the business environment may require a different set of ethics and behaviour to that of general society. Carr (cited in Tarry et al 2007, p.145) states that while “critics of business regard this behaviour as unethical… the companies concerned know that they are merely playing the business game”.
Some clarification behind the reasoning of this view of ethics is outlined by Veralius in his analysis of Alhoff’s article “Business Bluffing Reconsidered”. Veralius believes that the reasoning behind Alhoff’s defence of business bluffing is based on role differentiated morality. Veralius (2006 p.164) states:
“Role differentiated morality suggests three claims: (1) certain roles makes certain acts permissible that would otherwise be impermissible, (2) certain roles makes acts impermissible that would otherwise be permissible and (3) certain roles makes acts obligatory that would otherwise not be obligatory.”
Despite this relaxed view of ethics, Carr does not intend playing the business game to mean: do whatever you want, without regard to what laws you may be breaking. Beach (1985, p.192) interprets this to mean ‘if an act it is illegal it should be condemned. Carr (cited in Terry et al 2007, p.145) gives this guidance to players in the business game - “as long as they comply with the letter of the law, they are in their rights to operate their business as they see fit”. This idea is extended to include profit in one of the examples given by Carr that involved a mouth wash manufacturing firm. The company’s chief... [continues]

Read full essay