Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on A Backhanded View of Business Ethics. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 4 page paper discussing aberrations of business ethics promoted by two self-proclaimed “theorists.” Albert Carr, Norman Gillespie and Peter Drucker all maintain very different views of the role that ethics and ethical behavior play in the conduct of business. The purpose here is to examine and assess the position of each, determining which approach is the better one to follow. The paper concludes that the international business climate has changed dramatically since the height of Drucker’s writing activity, but the simple rules and common sense he promotes have not. Carr and Gillespie are just plain wrong. Each has invested misplaced energy and thought that perhaps could have been used to produce something worthwhile. Bibliography lists 6 sources.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: CC6_KSbusEthCarrGil.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
Carr, Norman Gillespie and Peter Drucker all maintain very different views of the role that ethics and ethical behavior play in the conduct of business. The purpose here is
to examine and assess the position of each, determining which approach is the better one to follow. Albert Carr Though Norman Gillespie gives
great attention to the types of excuses acceptable in business, Albert Carr seeks to legitimize them. Carr promotes the "game theory" of business ethics, and equates "bluffing" in business
to that of bluffing in poker. He says that in poker, bluffing is nothing more than sound strategy, and that other players expect it to occur and in fact
engage in it themselves. It is, therefore, an accepted and commonplace strategy of the game (Piker, 2002). As such, the player who is most accomplished in using the
strategy is the one who is most likely to win. In the course of promoting this "theory," Carr appears to underwrite lying in
business as a necessary and common tool of business conduct, and that its use does not reflect on the morality of the liar.
It appears that Carr has not even a speaking acquaintance with the concepts of integrity and trust. Neither does he effectively support his arguments for making analogy between bluffing
in poker and actively lying in business. The poker player merely refrains from volunteering information to other players, as it should be in business. Carr, however, promotes active
lying, apparently without regard to the need for trust within the organization, particularly in this age of intense competition. Nor does he acknowledge the need for workers to be
...