Bluffing in the Game of Modern Business: An Ethical Analysis

Bluffing in the Game of Modern Business: An Ethical Analysis

The topic of ethics in business has long been debated. It has been argued that the term "business ethics" is an oxymoron in itself. Managers today suffer from the absence of a clear-cut set of guidelines for making ethical decisions. Decision makers within companies today have the power to potentially influence thousands of people. It is drastically important that all decision makers within a company can determine their monumental consequences to be ethical and good. With this in mind, modern business decision makers must acquire the knowledge necessary for making positive-influence decisions. Managers must also show that they are able to analyze their decisions using ethical theories such as: Virtue, Kantian, and Utilitarian Ethics. Using these ethical analyses will bring answers to managers dealing with questionable subject, such as the deception in advertising. With the driving aspect of a business being its advertising and marketing practices it comes to question if influencing consumers in a way that is not direct, is ethical or not. Like a poker player playing a bluff, it is thought to simply be a way for companies to lure in potential customers. The bluff might have a pair of Aces hiding behind it, comparable to the advertising campaign bluffing their portrayal that their products will cause happy thoughts and feelings that better a new customer. To find out what the real results are is to be determined by opposing players of both poker and consumerism. It is possible, however, for businesses to responsibly portray the product in addition to creating these positive feelings, giving the consumers a chance to read the bluff. It is to be assessed through the views of Virtue, Kantian, and Utilitarian ethics, and determined that modern advertising tactics can be a justifiable, fundamental part of competition and success. The pressure to deceive is felt everywhere in business. Bluffs, in the modern era, are not only had in Texas Hold Em, but are ethically justifiable as a fundamental part of competition and success.

The first view on modern advertising will be shown through a modern form of Aristotle's perspective known as Virtue ethics. This ethical theory focuses on the tendency of an action to cause good. This type of ethical thinking always poses the question of what the purpose of the individual causing the action is. This individual can be translated to the case of modern advertising as an organization. The company choosing to advertise is the decision maker in this situation, and its purpose is to conduct business well. It is argued that conducting a business well means strictly that the company is producing profit. Aristotle believed that profit was a benefit, but the actions to achieve profit must be virtuous. In an extreme case of indirect advertising, it would be determined as non-virtuous but in a reasonable case it would be virtuous. It would depend on the extent of the advertising to determine this. The case of entirely untrue advertising would involve the virtues of making a profit, company success, lack of integrity, and direct deception. The other alternative of centering advertising around facts but supported by subtle deception of feelings involves the virtues of upholding integrity, fairness to competitors, indirect deception, and decreasing profit. The virtues of both options will be ranked in importance and where these numbers lie will be assessed. This step brings about another Virtue ethics thought. An ethical decision is one that lies between the extremes of these numbers. Not the option that simply holds the single highest ranking virtue. With this determinant factor, the ethical decision is to include some subtle deceptions of feeling in advertising, but base the majority of marketing on product fact. With the virtues accounted for, it is determined that the modern form of advertising is justified, and is necessary to pursue the company's purpose.

The next perspective that the ethicality of modern advertising can be viewed from is that of Immanuel Kant. Kantian ethics are based on the means that an action uses to achieve an end. In the case of advertising, these "means" would entail the people impacted by modern advertising. In this theory, their benefit must be considered. Another question that this theory proposes is the concept of autonomy. Autonomy can be described in the statement, "Is it acceptable if all people were to partake in these actions". In this specific case it is already known that the great majority, if not all companies, partake in some form of indirect or deceptive (known to be called "persuasive") advertising. Therefore, if a company is making the decision to implement a deceptive advertising campaign then it is accepted in the current business world. The next question that must be asked includes the concept of mere means and described in the question, "does this action respect the well-being of those affected, or are they being used as mere means to an end". If a stakeholder is being used as mere means, than they would suffer from that particular action.

The case of advertising poses an interesting answer to this question. Those affected by these actions would include: the advertising company (decision maker), the target market, the competitors, the media, and current consumers. The advertising company is using this form of advertising as an effective means to reach the end goal of attracting customers. This is goal is a reasonable one, and is considered ethical that they would want to increase revenue. The competitors are not affected, due to the fact that the competing businesses are already using this form of advertising. The media is benefited by these actions and are used as a vehicle to deliver these advertising messages, which in turn,