Honesty In Business
Honesty in Business
The act of bluffing in business is a largely debated concept. I have provided substantial evidence in support of two different views on the reasoning behind why bluffing in business is seen as positive and also the negative aspects and overall consequences it can cause. Both philosophers Carr and Bowie apply relevant concepts in support of their opinions. Carr looks at bluffing as a game strategy while Bowie feels that business should not be looked at as a game of poker and utilize strategies that will provide a cooperative and non adversarial work environment.
Business bluffing as defined by Albert Z. Carr is the practice of deception in business transactions with customers, dealers, labour unions, government officials and so forth (page 44). Omitting pertinent facts, exaggerations, and providing conscious misstatements, are calculated steps taken by business executives to sway others to agree with them (page 44). Bluffing in business is regarded as a game strategy. It is comparable to bluffing in poker in the sense that it does not hinder the moral of the bluffer according to Carr. An essential element of his point of view is that the ethics of business are seen as game ethics and are very different from the ethics of religion; where lying in all aspects is morally wrong. Carr's point of view sees a bluff being ethically justified because business has the characteristics of a game; it requires a particular strategy and comprehension of its special ethics to be successful.
The strategy of bluffing must be seen by the executer as a game players decision and not interfere with their own moral values or taint the view of ones self for the bluff to be viewed as ethical. Carr believes that if a business executive does not bluff occasionally due to their own moral obligations to tell truth and only the truth, they are at an extreme disadvantage, ignoring opportunities that are seen as ethical under the rules of business dealings. The game of
The act of bluffing in business is a largely debated concept. I have provided substantial evidence in support of two different views on the reasoning behind why bluffing in business is seen as positive and also the negative aspects and overall consequences it can cause. Both philosophers Carr and Bowie apply relevant concepts in support of their opinions. Carr looks at bluffing as a game strategy while Bowie feels that business should not be looked at as a game of poker and utilize strategies that will provide a cooperative and non adversarial work environment.
Business bluffing as defined by Albert Z. Carr is the practice of deception in business transactions with customers, dealers, labour unions, government officials and so forth (page 44). Omitting pertinent facts, exaggerations, and providing conscious misstatements, are calculated steps taken by business executives to sway others to agree with them (page 44). Bluffing in business is regarded as a game strategy. It is comparable to bluffing in poker in the sense that it does not hinder the moral of the bluffer according to Carr. An essential element of his point of view is that the ethics of business are seen as game ethics and are very different from the ethics of religion; where lying in all aspects is morally wrong. Carr's point of view sees a bluff being ethically justified because business has the characteristics of a game; it requires a particular strategy and comprehension of its special ethics to be successful.
The strategy of bluffing must be seen by the executer as a game players decision and not interfere with their own moral values or taint the view of ones self for the bluff to be viewed as ethical. Carr believes that if a business executive does not bluff occasionally due to their own moral obligations to tell truth and only the truth, they are at an extreme disadvantage, ignoring opportunities that are seen as ethical under the rules of business dealings. The game of