by Brent Emanuel

Created on: November 06, 2008   Last Updated: April 06, 2010

Albert Carr argues that business bluffing can be ethical provided it is legal and will help businesses earn profits. Carr states that one cannot apply a single standard of ethics universally as different situations entail that one should follow different mores. Carr illustrates this point by alluding to a poker game: people who are playing poker do not adhere to the same moral rules that they would adhere to in other circumstances. Carr demonstrates that in poker, lying and dishonesty are virtues; whereas in normal circumstances those traits are vices.

Carr concludes that when people are involved in business they should follow a different moral code then they would in other situations. Carr feels that this code would center on benefiting the business. This idea is unique as it is a sharp break from deontological and even other teleological ethical theories. One of the more controversial conclusions Carr draws from the above arguments is that in business bluffing, lying or otherwise misrepresenting the truth are acceptable if businesses will benefit from doing so.

Teleological ethics are ethical theories that judge the moral worth of an action by its ends or purpose. Carr's theory is teleological as he suggests that when actions can lead to high profits, those actions are good even if they violate ethical norms or deontological standards. One way to evaluate Carr's arguments is to briefly analyse them from various teleological perspectives.

Utilitarianism is probably the most widely held form of teleological ethics and has some similarities to Carr's findings: utilitarians believe that the moral worth of an action is based upon the amount of pleasure or pain that action creates. Utilitarians could accept much of Carr's theory, as there is arguably a direct connection between wealth and happiness. Further, Carr mentions that as all businesses bluff then it will not harm anyone if a particular business maintains that custom. If Carr's argument, that when businesses act to maximize their profits they will simultaneously maximize pleasure, is successful then his theory is very combatable with utilitarianism.

One can also demonstrate that Carr's theory is compatible with Aristotelian ethics. Aristotle argues that humans are good when they fulfill their purpose which is to use reason well. Aristotle felt that everything has a purpose, and that a thing is good if it is able to fulfill that purpose. For Carr, a business's purpose is to maximize profits. It would not

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page >>