Honesty and Trust
Ciulla et al. (2011) define honor as an active regard for the standards of one’s position, calling, or profession. It suggests that the person refuses to lie, steal, or deceive in any way. In business, honesty is crucial in building trust. This is seen in this chapter as we view Honesty and trust concerning business practices. This paper will discuss the summary of the philosophical arguments raised by four authors on the subject of honesty and trust in business.
These days trust is a delicate matter in business. Executives approach it with caution as noted by Robert C. Solomon. The reason is that trust seems to be overly sold as most people cannot differentiate the various forms of trust. According to Solomon, there are four types of trust: simple trust, basic trust, blind trust, and genuine trust (Ciulla et al., 2011). According to Ciulla et al. (2011), simple trust is the trust of “a naïve well brought up child,” it is unchallenged and unquestioned (p.70). Blind trust is consistent and possibly self-deluding trust. It is not necessarily naïve. Basic trust involves the sense of emotional and physical security that is most bluntly violated on most occasions. Daryl Kohlm once stated “Should we trust trust?” showing just how sensitive the matter is (Ciulla et al., 2011, p.69). Thus, in understanding these forms of trust one can easily see how they are sullied for politicians, personal and, or business purposes.
According to Sessela Bok, lying and secrecy is inseparable (Ciulla et al., 2011). This is because people lie to protect their secrets and that we use secrecy to go undiscovered if we lie. Their close relationship also means they are different in their way. “Secrets should not all be viewed as evils as the simplest thing, for example, a riddle or a path can be one” (Ciulla et al., 2011 p. 51). If secrets are viewed as bad, then people’s privacy is then at risk as these secrets are the arsenal used to protect it. Therefore, secrets are essential to life either personally or in business.
Albert Carr argues that there is nothing wrong ethically with bluffing in business. To explain his view, he uses the poker model of ethics. In poker, there is nothing wrong with deceiving people to win the game. A person that does this is a good poker player as he understands the rules of the match and uses them to his advantage (Ciulla et al., 2011). This does not, however, imply that his personal ethics should be questioned. Therefore, business should be the same where people understand that bluffing is a part of the business and that it is not wrong.
Carr’s model is, however, questioned by Norman E. Bowie using Kant’s ethics. Bowie argues that most business people agree with the poker model because they do not put into consideration Kant’s ethics. According to Ciulla et al. (2011), Kant’s model states “a requirement of morality is consistency in action” (p. 144). Thus, if people accept cheating and bluffing as business practices, they should consider what would happen if it was consistently applied universally (Ciulla et al., 2011). It would eliminate the need for lying and cheating all together as people would expect to be lied to when entering a business transaction. This, in the end, would contradict itself.
Indeed, honesty is a crucial part of business as it creates trust. There are differing forms of trust that are exploited when people lie and thus the need for secrets. Secrets and lies go hand in hand and centrally to most people’s opinions secrets are not all that bad as they protect someone’s privacy. Of the four philosophical arguments made, I identify the most with the poker model by Albert Carr. It recognizes business for what it is, a game of strategy, allowing people to have a competitive edge.
Reference
Ciulla, B.J., Martin, M., & Solomon, C. R. (2011). Honest work: A business ethics reader (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
