Of Dice and Men: Rethinking Business as a Game

In Patricia Werhane & Mollie Painter-Morland (eds.), Cutting-Edge Issues in Business Ethics. pp. 109-120 (2008)

Authors
Russell Ford
Elmhurst College
Abstract
Albert Carr’s contention that business and individual behavior within business can be understood through an analogy with a game of poker suffers from two central deficiencies. The first is conceptual: in his account, Carr slips between a discussion of games and a discussion of poker as thought they were interchangeable. However, “bluffing,” which is the only concept that Carr is interested in, is actually a mode of play, particular to a subset of games. The second deficiency is one of scale: Carr’s account elides the difference between business understood as a practical domain and business understood from the standpoint of one of the participants or “players” within that domain. These two deficiencies are tacitly invoked by Norman Gillespie in his critique of Carr’s argument. However, Gillespie’s counter-claim – that business is a limited aspect of a more general ethical domain whose rules ought to be able to be shaped by its subjects – fails to pursue the conceptual shortcomings of Carr’s argument far enough. Beginning with Gillespie’s critique, this essay will use Gilles Deleuze’s image of the dice-throw (drawn from Heraclitus and Nietzsche) in order to argue that, 1) the concept of play is not synonymous with bluffing (the latter being only a limited aspect of the former); 2) the concept of play conceptualizes the always incomplete domain of ethics; 3) the incompletion of the ethical domain is not a function of relativism, but of the insufficiency of concepts to completely encompass empirical events; and 4) that business is a particular ethical domain circumscribed not by bluffing, but by a set of rules that overcodes moral evaluations with economic ones.
Keywords Business Ethics
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,132
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Business and Game-Playing: The False Analogy. [REVIEW]Daryl Koehn - 1997 - Journal of Business Ethics 16 (12-13):1447-1452.
Computer Ethics: An Argument for Rethinking Business Ethics.Wanbil W. Lee & Allan Kk Chan - forthcoming - 2nd World Business Ethics Forum: Rethinking the Value of Business Ethics, Hong Kong Baptist University, 1-12 December 2008.
Game Theory as a Model for Business Ethics.Robert C. Solomon - 1999 - Business Ethics Quarterly 9 (1):11-29.
Hume’s Theory of Business Ethics Revisited.William Kline - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 105 (2):163-174.
Globalization and the Ethics of Business.John R. Boatright - 2000 - Business Ethics Quarterly 10 (1):1-6.
Is There “No Such Thing as Business Ethics”?Eric H. Beversluis - 1987 - Journal of Business Ethics 6 (2):81 - 88.
Women, Ethics, and MBAs.Cheryl MacLellan & John Dobson - 1997 - Journal of Business Ethics 16 (11):1201-1209.
Business and Games.Peter Heckman - 1992 - Journal of Business Ethics 11 (12):933 - 938.
Business Ethics in South Africa.G. J. Rossouw - 1997 - Journal of Business Ethics 16 (14):1539-1547.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-10-06

Total views
0

Recent downloads (6 months)
0

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes