Next step is to bring all the thesis stuff together, and bring all the argument stuff together.
deceptive packaging of numerous products. * automobile companies for years have neglected the safety of car-owning families. * utility companies elude regulating government bodies to extract unduly large payments from users of electricity * In their employment policies they used ingenious devices to discriminate against certain minority groups. * using a cheap form of alcohol possibly deleterious to health. * deny a raise to a man who deserves it, * to fire an employee of long standing * to prepare advertising that he believes to be misleading * to conceal facts that he feels customers are entitled to know * to cheapen the quality of materials used in the manufacture of an established product * to sell as new a product that he knows to be rebuilt * to exaggerate the curative powers of a medicinal preparation * to coerce dealers * get rid of a lot of half-rotten tomatoes by including one, with its good side exposed, in every tomato six-pack. * taken an improper deduction on his company’s tax return * owns stock in another company with which he has placed large orders. He could deny it, for the stock is in the name of his son-in-law * “Parry every question with answers which, while perfectly truthful, are evasive of bottom facts.”
So here's a list of things that Carr thinks are ethical:
While Carr seems to stop short of excusing extortion, torture and murder, there doesn't seem to be any horrible thing commonly done by businesses that he doesn't excuse, and some of what he does excuse, unsafe cars, unsafe mouthwash, discrimination. coercion, lying to Congress, all seem bad enough that they would need pretty serious reasons to be proved to be morally okay.
I'm going to put each (possible) argument into my own words, with a label or a comment on the logic of it. I say "possible" argument because I'd rather err on the side of including something that isn't intended as an argument than leave out something that is.
bluffing in business might be regarded simply as game strategy—much like bluffing in poker, which does not reflect on the morality of the bluffer.
Severely damaging lies by business people are okay because lying by business people is like bluffing in poker, which is morally okay. (Argument #1)
falsehood ceases to be falsehood when it is understood on all sides that the truth is not expected to be spoken”—an exact description of bluffing in poker, diplomacy, and business.
Severely damaging lies by business people are okay because lying is okay when nobody expects to hear the truth. (Argument #2)
Omar Burleson, the Democrat from Texas, who was quoted as saying, in regard to the ethics of Congress, “Ethics is a barrel of worms”1—a pungent summing up of the problem of deciding who is ethical in politics.
Severely damaging lies by business people are okay because distinguishing ethical politicians is haaaaaaaaaaaard. (Argument #3)
this is generally accepted as permissible strategy when the alternative might be the loss of a job
Severely damaging lies by
business people are okay because it's okay to lie to bigoted,
unfair employers. (Argument #4)
the ethics of business are game ethics
Severely damaging lies by business people are okay because only game rules apply to business. (Argument #5)
if the individual executive refuses to bluff from time to time—if he feels obligated to tell the truth, . . .he is ignoring opportunities . . . . and is at a heavy disadvantage in his business dealings.Severely damaging lies by business people are okay because they are profitable. (Argument #6)
If he is to reconcile personal integrity and high standards of honesty with the practical requirements of business, he must feel that his bluffs are ethically justified. The justification rests on the fact that business, as practiced by individuals as well as by corporations, has the impersonal character of a game—a game that demands both special strategy and an understanding of its special ethics.Severely damaging lies by business people are okay because business is a kind of a game. (Argument #5 again)
We can learn a good deal about the nature of business by comparing it with poker.
Severely damaging lies by business people are okay because lying by business people is like bluffing in poker, which is morally okay. (Argument #1 again)
Poker has its special ethics, and here I am not referring to rules against cheating. The man who keeps an ace up his sleeve or who marks the cards is more than unethical; he is a crook, and can be punished as such—kicked out of the game or,—in the Old West, shot.
I'm not sure, but I think he's saying that hiding aces and marking cards are morally wrong, and in the Old West, worthy of death because they're against the rules of poker! Which suggests that the meaning of this is that:
Severely damaging lies by business people are morally okay just as long as they don't break any laws. (Argument #7)
No one thinks any the worse of poker on that account. And no one should think any the worse of the game of business because its standards of right and wrong differ from the prevailing traditions of morality in our society.
This is just argument #1 again. There's nothing in here besides "businessers get to play by different rules because business is like poker".
If the law says he can do it, that’s all the justification he needs. There’s nothing unethical about that. It’s just plain business sense
Severely damaging lies by business people are morally okay just as long as they don't break any laws. (Argument #7 again)
Espionage has become so common in business that it’s like taking a drink during Prohibition—it’s not considered sinful.Business espionage is not considered morally wrong, therefore it is not morally wrong. (Argument #8)
If the laws governing their businesses change, or if public opinion becomes clamorous, they will make the necessary adjustments. But morally they have in their view done nothing wrong. As long as they comply with the letter of the law, they are within their rights to operate their businesses as they see fit.
Businessers do no wrong as long as they keep to the letter of the law because in their view they do no wrong as long as they keep to the letter of the law. (Argument #9)
Each year the Federal Trade Commission orders hundreds of companies, many of them of the first magnitude, to “cease and desist” from practices which, judged by ordinary standards, are of questionable morality but which are stoutly defended by the companies concerned.It's okay to violate FTC rules as long as you "stoutly defend" the practice. (Argument #10)
a sudden submission to Christian ethics by businessmen would bring about the greatest economic upheaval in history!”I'm going to interpret "Christian ethics" as "morality", mainly because his examples of things that violate "Christian ethics" are things that actually hurt people, and not any of the "worship this", "shun that", "oppress those", and "persecute them" stuff, so I make this:
It's okay to do immoral things because banning evil stuff would cause a large economic crisis. (Argument #11)
the government failed to prove its case against him
It okay to do bad things if the justice system, for some reason, fails to punish you. (Argument #12)
“It pays to be ethical,” or, “Sound ethics is good business.” Actually this is not an ethical position at all; it is a self-serving calculation in disguise.People who advocate ethical behavior are actually being selfish rather than being ethical. (Argument #13)
If an executive allows himself to be torn between a decision based on business considerations and one based on his private ethical code, he exposes himself to a grave psychological strainIt's okay to do immoral things because choosing between morality and profit makes businessers angsty. (Argument #14)
This wife saw the problem in terms of moral obligation as conceived in private life; her husband saw it as a matter of game strategy. As a player in a weak position, he felt that he could not afford to indulge an ethical sentiment that might have cost him his seat at the table.I'm going to ignore the disgusting sexist subtext, and just summarize the
argument.
It's okay to do certain immoral things, such as lying, whenever it's more profitable than not being evil. (Argument #6)
If he is not resigned to losing, if he wants to rise in his company and industry, then in such a crisis he will bluff—and bluff hard.It's okay to do certain immoral things, such as lying, whenever it's more profitable than not being evil. (Argument #6)
and the executive who does not master its techniques is not likely to accumulate much money or power.
It's okay to do certain immoral things, such as lying, whenever it's more profitable than not being evil. (Argument #6)
Ugh!
The more I look into this article, the more I feel I need a shower.
Copyright © 2024 by Martin C. Young
