According to Albert Carr, business and personal activities can be understood by analogy with poker, resulting in two central disadvantages. For Carr, business ethics differs from anyone’s ethics, and there is nothing credible. Ken Goodpaster (BEQ), in his original volume, provides strategic and credible evidence to shareholders, explaining the theory that emerged at the time: ‘Strategic evidence helps to enhance self-actualization not just with stakeholders but with shareholders. However, it was considered immoral and prudent at the time. (Duska, 2010) Most business writers think of business as games and have their own rules as games. We generally do not tolerate deception, but opacity is not only acceptable but also expected in poker.
Similarly, action-abusing, hyperbole, puffs and squats are ethically acceptable, as in games, where there is a special ethic that generally permits such misconduct. (Koehn, 1997) This document does not prove that the comparison is too weak and does not explain the business at large, or that business ethics may or may not be a game. (Koehn, 1997) For the past two decades, the ideas outlined in the quarterly business ethics concept have made a significant difference in the way people think and speak.
If using is thought to lead to thought and speech action, BEQ influenced business communication behavior. Although many ideas reflect those in business ethics since the first issue of BEQ, three major intellectual movements have amazed me. (Duska, 2010) The ethical evidence of enterprise is as powerful as the analogy between business and gaming. The opposite of Gillespie, however, is that business is a limited aspect of ethics governed by general rules, rules that can shape its contents – which still cannot fulfill the conceptual disadvantages of Carr’s proof.
Beginning with Gillespie’s critique, this article uses the image throwing, (1) the concept of the game is not synonymous with ambiguity (the latter is limited); 2) the concept of play always refers to the area of imperfect ethics; 3) a lack of moral awareness of the work of relativism; 4) This action is a set of rules that transcend economic ethics, not ethics. (Ford, 2008) Most business writers think of business as a game and have their own rules of behavior. We generally do not tolerate deception, but opacity is not only acceptable but also expected in poker.
In the case of Carr’s natural appeal, this observation, unfortunately, applies to businesspeople and trade students. (Koehn, 1997) Psychological research has begun to investigate the delicate relationship between self-interest and moral issues. The gap between suppressive behavior and abnormal behavior is narrow or narrow, and it is good to understand the conceptual foundations of doing business and the nature of those who engage in it. (Duska, 2010)
The moral condition of a business breakdown is controversial. On the one hand, it seems vague and untrue. In this respect, business refusal can be understood as an act of moral condemnation, at least. On the other hand, the business stimulus is part of the game, so it is often said that there is nothing ethically questionable about business mixing. (Varelius, 2006) The result of Carr’s unifying approach to business ethics is that he is forced to justify his business behavior on grounds other than religious ethics because self-money is not based on the moral code of self-sacrifice. A student at The University of Business Ethics commented on the essence of a theoretical approach to business ethics: “Business does nothing except lend its money.”
Carey Decision to Protect Business Activities: Business is just a game. “The important issue is that business ethics is a game ethic different from religious ethics.” Therefore, Carr divides the personality of a business person, which must be a form of his personality. The other type is at work and not at work. (Kirkpatrick, 2012) Carr rightly argues that the purpose of the game is to defeat an opponent by operating on clearly defined terms, but he broadens the business potential by asserting that “business game” rules are “ground law.”
Unfortunately, this is not discussed in most ethics books. Part of the problem can be traced back to cloud business negotiations or negotiations. Examples of ethics literature include requests for cars, houses, or poker. Interference outside of a business (and poker games) can occur in government, non-profit organizations, and even in some marriages. (Brenkert, 2013) The moral condition of a business breakdown is controversial. On the one hand, it seems vague and untrue. In this respect, business refusal can be understood as an act of moral condemnation, at least. On the other hand, vague business is part of the game in business, so some believe that mixing business is nothing ethically dubious. (Varelius, 2006)
Bluffing has long been a topic of interest to business ethics professionals. On the other hand, many people have the impression that vague negotiation strategies are sound and morally permissible. Given this tension, what is the moral state of chaos in business? The priority rule is designed to show whether it is permissible and, therefore, unseen, triggered, or illusory. The two most respected papers have differing views on the legitimacy of obscurity. (Allhoff, 2003) “It is the law governing the country that conducts business. (Kirkpatrick, 2012) Business bluffing is often discussed in business ethics (see also business ethics), which doesn’t matter here.