Return to Mercer Street 2002 Table of Contents

by Ryan D. Bennett

The summer following my junior year in high school I learned the harsh realities of business in the world of used cars. When I purchased my 1995 Honda Civic I was told the air conditioner needed a recharge after I asked about the malfunctioning unit; however, a mechanic soon informed me of the real problem-the absence of a full A/C unit. The dealership in fact replaced the A/C unit, but not until I signed a contract stating I could not file suit or request any other repairs for the car-that, of course, was to their benefit. Three months later, I found out that the engine had been improperly mounted and that the transmission needed $3,000 in work-all things they failed to tell me at the time of purchasing the car. After only four months of use, the car sat unusable for nine months.

At first, I thought I had gotten a deal when they fixed my A/C; however, that deal-in the end-cost me about $5,000 in additional work. It bothered me that a company could manipulate people, especially me, into signing a contract-knowing of several other problems with the car. From this experience, my idea of business morphed into one of deception-a result of the untruthfulness of business practices I encountered.

Behind deception rest secrecy and openness-two important but yet difficult to define ideas-where large conflicts arise. Sissela Bok's essay, "Secrecy and Moral Choices," seeks to explain these complexities of secrecy-how secrecy is both helpful and harmful to human existence. Bok scrutinizes not simply the idea of secrecy, but considers as well our ability to control secrecy.

In discussing secrecy's inherent benefits to society, Bok presents its ability to grant "elements of human autonomy: identity, plans, action, and property" (6). In doing so, she illustrates how the control of secrecy allows human beings to decide who they are, what they are going to do, and how they will do it. She argues that without "control over secrecy and openness, human beings could not remain either sane or free" (8). However, warning of the dangers of secrecy, Bok establishes the notion that when individuals are forced to keep certain things secret, their judgment and creativity become disabled because "it shuts out criticism and feedback" (8). Furthermore, she discusses the notion that secrecy is the basis for any human-to-human harm: "and while not all secrets are discreditable, all that is discreditable and all wrongdoing seek out secrecy" (9). In her essay "The Perspective of the Liar," Bok summarizes lying as "influence[ing] some choice another is to make that the liar anticipates; the choice to lie or not to lie is part of the liar's strategy" (11). In my mind Bok's idea of lying can instantly be morphed into a simple, negative, definition of business-the one I currently hold.

Albert Z. Carr, writer of "Is Business Bluffing Ethical?" takes the opposite approach of Bok-explaining that business ethics exist in a different realm and more specifically, that deception is expected and therefore legitimate. However, Bok argues in another of her essays, "Lying to Liars" that "much greater problems in bargaining arise when one or both parties do not participate voluntarily, or where both parties are not equally aware of the ground rules allowing deception" (15). This is precisely where the problem with the used-car dealership lies-I failed to know the level of deception to expect from the dealership. I question where the fault lies-in either my inability to see the deceptiveness of the dealership or in the irregular amount of deceit that one would not expect. In examining the nature of secrecy and openness, Bok determines two main criteria for control of secrecy-the first being equality of control and the second as having "partial individual control over secrecy in personal matters" ("Secrecy" 9). It is important to note that out of Bok's two criteria, only one applies to the problem at hand, and it involves equity in control, which seemingly never occurred in my situation.

Equity was, in fact, rather skewed toward the car dealership. I experienced the same feeling of inequity that the finance community has experienced after recent events involving the Enron Corporation: "An Ipsos-Reid poll of 619 investors conducted for BusinessWeekon Feb. 11 found they don't see Enron as an isolated case" ("After Enron"). Ignoring this equity in control, Enron-noted as an "energy giant"-failed to maintain a fair level of governance. Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron, "told employees that the third-quarter results were 'looking great'" when the truth was that Enron had "lost $618 million" (Oppel 3). Here again, control of secrecy resulted in thousands of employees losing investments. Enron not only withheld vital information from one person, but from thousands of investors, employees, banks, and possibly even auditors. A similar inequity was felt by stockholders of the Xerox corporation who found that they too were misinformed as to the company's financial situation after James Bingham, the former Assistant Treasurer of Xerox, questioned the company's accounting practices: "Gross margins were overstated by incredible amounts [. . .] all the way up to 32%" (Bingham). It is apparent that businesses do have the power and control to manipulate others into doing as businesses see fit.

In "Is Business Bluffing Ethical?," Carr discusses the idea of telling the truth in the business realm and concludes that "he [would be] ignoring opportunities permitted under the rules and is at a heavy disadvantage in his business dealings" when doing so (18). In Carr's world, corporations-driven only by profit-must use every advantage possible to succeed. Carr concentrates on business-to-business exchanges, but fails to realize that consumer-to-business exchanges present the same problems. In not discussing such issues he seems to grant that business-to-consumer exchanges may require a different perspective. Furthermore, how would business-to-business dealings result in a different dilemma?

In examining business dealings many, like Carr, suggest that both sides come with a mutual understanding of the deceit involved and somehow justify deceit because of this common understanding. However, as the old saying goes "two wrongs don't make it right." Would trust not be restored and equity be established if business decided to deal in honesty? Dealing honestly, parties involved would be better served.

Moreover, long-term harm is done to liars. Sissela Bok explains, "The flaw in such an outlook is that [lying] ignores or underestimates two additional kinds of harm-the harm that lying does to the liars themselves and the harm done to the general level of trust and social cooperation" ("Perspective" 12). It is this notion where the fundamental problem of lying rests. Lying in the business world may, in fact, affect parts of the personal life. Lying becomes, for those in the business world, a norm or accepted fact that in turn desensitizes them to lying in the personal realm. Carr even concedes that "ethical standards of the business game [. . .] are a far cry from those of private life" (17). Seemingly, Carr would agree that lying or deceiving one's wife would, indeed, be immoral on the basis of the ethics of private life. Does it really make sense that on one hand lying is okay, but on the other it's not? Carr answers by explaining that a loss of business and jobs revolve around this principle of lying in the business world-much like a game of poker. However, he even concedes that "the better [one's] reputation for integrity, honesty, and decency, the better chances of victory will be in the long run" (21). To me, this fully explains all the reasons not to lie; however, Carr seemingly contradicts himself in attempting to explain that bluffing will help one "rise in [one's] company and industry" (21). Two sentences later, it seems that Carr has fully forgotten that rising in an industry is a long-term goal, and he openly admits keeping a good reputation is essential for this long-term progress; yet somehow he considers lying an essential part of maintaining a good rapport. Carr, like many others, simply expects less from Corporate America; however, I feel that low expectations should not necessarily equate to a continuance of the status quo.

In examining the duplicity of morality in both private and business life, I am reminded of an acquaintance, Jenni, who attended the same church and high school that I attended. The odd aspect about Jenni was that at school she cursed and smoked and led a life full of things she'd never admit to at church. At church, she acted as if she had never done anything wrong in her life. This duplicitous behavior caused me and several others to lose respect and trust in her. In business, many deceive and bluff but return home to enter back into the realm of private morality. Upon entering the realm of private morality, I must ask, how does one know that he or she will cease to lie when a good portion-five of seven days in a week-may be dedicated to bluffing? Moreover, how does a spouse trust a partner, knowing he or she lies and deceives in business practices throughout the day? Bok best summarizes this problem: "It is easy for liars to stretch the analogy of voluntary mutual bargaining to excuse much more questionable practices" ("Lying" 15). One lie, or smaller lies, eventually lead to larger and more frequent lies.

Deception is all around us, and the Internet is one place where people fail to realize the degree of it. In the age of the Internet, many consumers have begun to worry about the destruction of their privacy. The technology surrounding "cookies"-devices used to track the sites Internet-user's access-recently created controversy when an Internet advertising agency, DoubleClick, attempted to "match [cookies] with [user's] addresses" (Polentsky). Having some relevant knowledge of technology I didn't realize how little the general public knew about the Internet; however, my Advanced College Essay class presented me with this surprise. When Chris Kim Jr., a fellow classmate, asked, "What is a cookie?" my entire class hesitated to answer his question. Prior to this, I had concluded that older generations, like my mother and father, were the ones that failed to know the risks in the technology they used, but my conceptions were corrected. This misunderstanding or lack of knowledge seems to be intergenerational. Even without expertise, shouldn't consumers have some sort of obligation to ask about "cookies'" impact on their Internet experience-relating to their privacy? Or is it rather the responsibility of both the software companies-like Microsoft-as well as the owner of the webpage to inform users that a "cookie" is being placed on their computer? It is clear that businesses won't reveal information unless they are asked; however, the average consumer doesn't know that much about computers-just as I didn't know much about cars. Any person with the slightest bit of mechanical experience could have seen that the A/C unit was missing from my car, just as any person with decent knowledge of computers and software would be able to explain the perils of accepting "cookies." Clearly business cannot expect all consumers to be knowledgeable of all products and services. But don't consumers still have an obligation to ask or seek help if they fail to know about the product or service they plan on purchasing? There is one fundamental problem with this approach-consumers might not even know that the product or service involves or requires extensive knowledge. The example of the Internet-user demonstrates this problem very well-the user's browser's default settings accept "cookies" without warning the user of the "cookies" potential use.

Businesses' obligations lie in making profit but also in serving their customers. However, in their drive for profit, businesses often lose sight of integrity and begin to deceive investors, customers, government, and the public at large. In my experience, I have found that trusting business is not advantageous. Businesses need to reestablish good rapport with the public by means of openness and honesty. In serving their customers honestly and openly, a company can benefit from a rise in consumer confidence. But we see that consumers and customers alike must begin to realize that they too must take it upon themselves to protect their interests-not however, in the way that some businesses do.

Works Cited

"After Enron, Are You Fed Up?" BusinessWeek online. 25 Feb. 2002. 1 Mar. 2002. <http:// www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2002/nf20020225_2897.htm?mainwindow

Bingham, James. "Truth, Loyalty, and Corporate Governance." Schimmel Auditorium, New York U. 11 Feb. 2002.

Bok, Sissela. "Lying to Liars." The Advanced College Essay: Business and Its Publics. Ed. Denice Martone and Pat C. Hoy II. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. 14-16.

--. "Secrecy and Moral Choice." The Advanced College Essay: Business and Its Publics. Ed. Denice Martone and Pat C. Hoy II. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. 3-10.

--. "The Perspective of the Liar." The Advanced College Essay: Business and Its Publics. Ed. Denice Martone and Pat C. Hoy II. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. 11-14.

Carr, Albert Z.. "Is Business Bluffing Ethical?" The Advanced College Essay: Business and Its Publics. Ed. Denice Martone and Pat C. Hoy II. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. 17-21.

Kim, Christopher Jr.. Personal interview. 6 Feb. 2002.

Oppel, Richard A. Jr.. "Despite Warning, Enron Chief Urged Buying of Shares." The New York Times. 19 Jan. 2002. 26 Jan. 2002.

Polonetsky, Jules. "Privacy in the Internet Age." Schimmel Auditorium, New York U. 4 Feb. 2002.

Return to Mercer Street 2002 Table of Contents