Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Carr's argument also addresses the limits of the range of unethical business conduct. Specifically, many unethical business practices do not necessarily involve deception, per se. The case of "legally" selling car keys to car thieves is an example of that. In fact, there are many instances of decidedly unethical deception in business that are not illegal and that do not involve lying, necessarily. A strong argument could be made that the use of paid celebrity endorsers of consumer products is unethical for at least two reasons. First, paid celebrity endorsers do not necessarily use the products they recommend to consumers; they enter contracts to read scripts and the law permits those scripts to be very liberal in terms of literal accuracy, if not necessarily truth. Second, the entire concept may be unethical precisely because it takes advantage of human social psychology to follow or emulate well-known individuals. Similar forms of advertising actually are illegal, such as subliminal messaging, although it is not clear why the latter is any "worse" or more...
For example, it may not be illegal to bombard a competitor with paperwork for strategic purposes to distract them, but it is unethical just the same as distracting poker opponents. Law firms, and corporate litigants battling opponents with tighter budgets in particular, do this all the time, precisely because they know that it increases the legal work (and the expense associated with it) and can result in a settlement earlier than allowing the opposing party to keep legal fees down. It is unethical but legal and does not involve explicit lies.
Ultimately, lying in business is illegal and unethical in some cases; it is legal but unethical in others; and it is legal and not necessarily unethical in still others. The analogy with legal bluffing in poker, legal but unethical distraction in poker, and outright cheating in poker holds up logically.
references is not unethical because it produces no harm.
Meanwhile, other types of business deception are as unethical as cheating in poker. Concealing the material truth about a product or about the details of a business arrangement to induce another entity to do something he would not do with full awareness is unethical deception and is analogous to playing with an extra card that is not part of the deck. Examples of that principle would include concealing major repairs to a vehicle offered for sale and a dishonest answer to a direct question asking whether the vehicle had ever suffered major damage.
Carr's argument also addresses the limits of the range of unethical business conduct. Specifically, many unethical business practices do not necessarily involve deception, per se. The case of "legally" selling car keys to car thieves is an example of that. In fact, there are many instances of decidedly unethical deception in business that are not illegal and that do not involve lying, necessarily. A strong argument could be made that the use of paid celebrity endorsers of consumer products is unethical for at least two reasons. First, paid celebrity endorsers do not necessarily use the products they recommend to consumers; they enter contracts to read scripts and the law permits those scripts to be very liberal in terms of literal accuracy, if not necessarily truth. Second, the entire concept may be unethical precisely because it takes advantage of human social psychology to follow or emulate well-known individuals. Similar forms of advertising actually are illegal, such as subliminal messaging, although it is not clear why the latter is any "worse" or more unethical to consumers than the former approach.
In that regard, Carr's comparison of unethical poker strategies that are not part of the game (such as distracting opponents) also have analogs in business. For example, it may not be illegal to bombard a competitor with paperwork for strategic purposes to distract them, but it is unethical just the same as distracting poker opponents. Law firms, and corporate litigants battling opponents with tighter budgets in particular, do this all the time, precisely because they know that it increases the legal work (and the expense associated with it) and can result in a settlement earlier than allowing the opposing party to keep legal fees down. It is unethical but legal and does not involve explicit lies.
Ultimately, lying in business is illegal and unethical in some cases; it is legal but unethical in others; and it is legal and not necessarily unethical in still others. The analogy with legal bluffing in poker, legal but unethical distraction in poker, and outright cheating in poker holds up logically.
Her carative elements strive to "honor the human levels of nursing's work and the inner life world and subjective experiences of individuals we serve" (Watson, 1997, p. 50). The 2 instances of these carative elements, which were later on altered to caritas consider 2001, in medical practice are "establishing and sustaining a helping-trusting, genuine caring relationship" and "existing to, and supportive of, the expression of favorable and adverse sensations
agrees that ethics is an important part of effective leadership in the field of health care but there is no universally accepted understanding of what constitutes ethical leadership (Milton, 20004). The concept of ethical leadership has been addressed in the literature of a wide variety of fields associated with the health care profession but none have been able to clearly define its terms. The purpose of this paper will
The subjects were 613 injured Army personnel Military Deployment Services TF Report 13 admitted to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from March 2003 to September 2004 who were capable of completing the screening battery. Soldiers were assessed at approximately one month after injury and were reassessed at four and seven months either by telephone interview or upon return to the hospital for outpatient treatment. Two hundred and forty-three soldiers
Such differences may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a matter of "cultural taste" (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks and Meyer: 1). If there is no transcendent ethical or moral standard, then cultural relativists argue that culture becomes the ethical norm for determining whether an action is right or wrong. This ethical system is known as cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the
Culture shapes how we think about what is good leadership, and the definitions of an 'effective leader' vary from one culture to another. In fact, effective leadership behavior in one culture could (and will) be completely ineffective in others." (ITAP International, p. 1) Here, we can see that the interrelation of Culture and Leadership Effectiveness is one of relativity. Such is to say that leadership effectiveness will be substantially shaped
(Feldman & Greenberg, 2005, p. 67) Staffing coordinators, often nurse leaders must seek to give priority to educational needs as a reason for adjusting and/or making schedules for staff, including offering incentives to staff not currently seeking educational goals for assisting in this priority regardless of the implementation of a tuition reimbursement program. (Feldman & Greenberg, 2005, p. 233) Nurse Leaders as Academic Theorists The fact that many nurse leaders serve