Albert Carr’s position in “Is Business Bluffing Ethical”
In the analogy between business and poker, Albert puts it in stark terms and it doesn’t need a stamp of approval to know that just like poker, business needs “steady skills.” Just like in the poker where the player must watch over the other players, the businessman must also keep a wary eye on the other business rivals. If the businessman at all needs to prosper in the business, he has to borrow the conjecture of the poker players- in the way that the players react and take chances of he opportunities that comes up.
In bluffing and lying, a businessman uses deceit when persuading and haggling with the clients, the dealer and even the administrative officials. In so doing it gives him the rivalry advantage just like a game in a poker (Brent). This is done through false statement s that are made knowingly, hiding of important facts or overstressing the information so that the intended party can sideline with them. In the game of poker, the same case applies where the players uses trickery and other cunning ways so that they can triumph over their rivals. In the third paragraph of third premise, Deepti quotes Carr,”…executives…practice some form of deception…conscious misstatements, concealment of pertinent facts or exaggeration…to persuade others to agree with them.”
Similarities between Carr’s view and Friedman
The Friedman’s stakeholder theory proposes that businesses are supposed to abide to an exceptional type of “utilitarianism” rather than trying to make the most of the contentment to its stakeholders. The theory of Carr states that in order for the business to prosper, making the most of the proceeds is the basic goal. The strength of the theory is that like the theory by Friedman, positive gains are the primary goal of his theory. The theory that was proposed by Albert Carr had strength in that it lets trades to proceed with their businesses with a kind of self-centered in a bid to realize the utmost proceeds. The theory of Carr backs up capitalism and it also give validations for the businessmen to go on with their activities and more importantly lying and deceit simply because in the society, the acts would be seen as ethically unacceptable when the businessmen go on with their premises. The theory gives an clarification of the main aim in the way that and the reason behind businesses accomplishing their objective which is to make returns.
The longevity and nature of business is not of the same caliber with that of the poker. The poker has a starting and an ultimate but the business even though it has a beginning, its duration stretches to a vast time. The objective of the business is dissimilar to that of the poker. This is because the game is played for recreational intentions only but the business is done for profit purposes. Unlike a poker, doing business is a essential according to the viewpoint of both the society and the economy. Business, is can not be passed since it’s the backbone of making out a living in the society unlike in the poker where the player plays the game compulsorily.
In the fourth paragraph of Premise one in the critique by Deepti Agarwal puts it in layman’s terms that business is a portion of one’s life unlike a poker. As the critique of Deepti draws to a close in the fifth paragraph, she argues that”…concerns about whether in business stakeholders at large consent to the rules, as do pokers.”
Bluffing (not lying), which as stated above is persuading others to agree with you through conscious misstatements, is prohibited to the players of a poker. In the game, you can not use lies to persuade the other players to agree with you. (Wrapping up the statement, we can deduct that in business lying can mean great to the businessman but in a game of poker, lying doesn’t count rather bluffing). The poker players use trickery to triumph over their competitors but in the business the businessman use lies that cannot be required to be proved (Moulder). In the poker, the lies are applicable though that are limited to the rules of the game. In simple terms, Albert Carr confuses bluffing and lying, two different words, but he tends to make their use in the extract be agreed with.
The theory of Carr contrasts greatly with that of Friedman from a principle viewpoint. According to his view, Carr opines that the victims who fall victims of the bluffing in business are not hurt by it in real sense because as he puts it bluffing is a requirement and is accepted from all businesses. The fact that the theory of Carr doesn’t give any regard as far as the human factor is concerned thereby making it objectionable as a moral theory. Carr is short of his theory in a way since he tends not to be aware of the human entities possess their own objectives and it is morally bad to do something that is different to one’s personal intention so as to accomplish the aims of the business. (Brent Page 3,1st paragraph)
Brent, Emanuel. http://www.helium.com/items/1227445-business-ethics-albert-carr-business-bluffing. 6 November 2008. 24 June 2011.
Moulder, James. http://home.earthlink.net/~dockstader/PHIL/carr_IsBusinessBluffingEthical.html. 15 June 2004. 24 June 2011 <http://falcon.tamucc.edu/sencerz/carr Business Bluffing.htm>.