I will now outline Albert Z. Carr’s arguments showing how the business world follows game ethics rather than the ethics used in an individual’s private life. In his essay, Carr uses “the analogy of the criminal court, where the criminal is not expected to tell the truth when he pleads “not guilty”” (Carr, 1968, p.400) and how the job of the defendant’s attorney is get his client off, not reveal the truth” (Carr, 1968, p.400). The defendant not expected to tell the truth due to the fact that if the defendant is in fact guilty and does not want to go to jail they will plead “not guilty” and that the defense attorney’s goal is to acquit their client. The burden of proof in a criminal case is “beyond a reasonable doubt” and rests on the prosecution,
…show more content…
Carr uses the criminal case analogy to show how other aspects of our society can follow ethics other than the normal private code of ethics and as a logical next step how other areas of society can also follow a different set of ethics. I use the following of Carr’s analogies to argue that the business world follows a different set of ethics than private life. Carr has two anecdotes that illustrate how telling the whole truth in business will leave you at a disadvantage. The first is of an applicant who is given a psychological test regarding which magazines that he reads, and to prevent the possibility of being rejected due to assumptions made on his reading preferences, he chooses to check off the boxes of conservative magazines that he thinks his employer wants the ideal candidate to read. The second anecdote is of a salesman who dyed his hair and lied about his age to get another job since the industry has a preference for hiring younger …show more content…
Even after finding employment, one may find themselves in a situation where they may have to agree with their superiors to keep their jobs, Carr uses an example of where “businessmen feel constrained every day to say yes to their bosses when they secretly believe no and that this is generally accepted as a permissible strategy when the alternative might be the loss of a job” (Carr, 1968, p.400). Carr reasons that it is the superiors own responsibility for his own actions and the actions of his employees, so why should an employee risk losing there job whenever a superior asks their opinion when the employee. It may be ethical by private standards to stand up to your boss and disagree whenever you think they are wrong, but a confrontational employee may have a hard time staying employed and finding another positions so it is unreasonable to hold that employee to private ethical standards. The next of Carr’s anecdotes that I will use is of the respected businessman who believed that his company adhered to the ethical standards of private life. The businessman outlines how his company under his leadership “…prides ourselves on our
Carr uses the criminal case analogy to show how other aspects of our society can follow ethics other than the normal private code of ethics and as a logical next step how other areas of society can also follow a different set of ethics. I use the following of Carr’s analogies to argue that the business world follows a different set of ethics than private life. Carr has two anecdotes that illustrate how telling the whole truth in business will leave you at a disadvantage. The first is of an applicant who is given a psychological test regarding which magazines that he reads, and to prevent the possibility of being rejected due to assumptions made on his reading preferences, he chooses to check off the boxes of conservative magazines that he thinks his employer wants the ideal candidate to read. The second anecdote is of a salesman who dyed his hair and lied about his age to get another job since the industry has a preference for hiring younger …show more content…
Even after finding employment, one may find themselves in a situation where they may have to agree with their superiors to keep their jobs, Carr uses an example of where “businessmen feel constrained every day to say yes to their bosses when they secretly believe no and that this is generally accepted as a permissible strategy when the alternative might be the loss of a job” (Carr, 1968, p.400). Carr reasons that it is the superiors own responsibility for his own actions and the actions of his employees, so why should an employee risk losing there job whenever a superior asks their opinion when the employee. It may be ethical by private standards to stand up to your boss and disagree whenever you think they are wrong, but a confrontational employee may have a hard time staying employed and finding another positions so it is unreasonable to hold that employee to private ethical standards. The next of Carr’s anecdotes that I will use is of the respected businessman who believed that his company adhered to the ethical standards of private life. The businessman outlines how his company under his leadership “…prides ourselves on our