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]
Cite This Essay
(2008, 09). Ethical Theory & Business. StudyMode.com. Retrieved 09, 2008, from http://www.studymode.com/essays/Ethical-Theory-Business-163882.html
"Ethical Theory & Business" StudyMode.com. 09 2008. 09 2008 <http://www.studymode.com/essays/Ethical-Theory-Business-163882.html>.
"Ethical Theory & Business." StudyMode.com. 09, 2008. Accessed 09, 2008. http://www.studymode.com/essays/Ethical-Theory-Business-163882.html.