There is something else that I want you to consider in this connection. What is noteworthy is that even though Carr and Solomon both seem to have a virtue-based theory of business ethics they reach diametrically opposed conclusion. Does this indicate that there might be something problematic in virtue ethics and/or its application to business? What might that be? Do you think rule utilitarianism or Kantian would fare better in that regard, especially concerning the question concerning honesty in business?

Albert Carrs famous piece Is Business Bluffing Ethical?

When you do so, you will see that Carr argues that the internal logic or telos of business is best understood in terms of an analogy with a competitive game such as poker. Note that much like Solomon, Carr understands business as a social practice and aims to identify its implicit norms and expectations, that is, the virtues that are specific to it. However, different from Solomon who argues that business aims at the flourishing of the individual within it and that of the wider community of which it is a part, Carr insists that the ethics of business is different from the ethical ideals of human relationship outside of business such as trust, friendship, kindness, etc. Carrs focus is on truth-telling and bluffing in business. He argues that bluffing is not unethical and honesty is not necessarily a business virtue. Indeed, excelling at business requires, among other things, the ability to deceive. We saw that Solomon includes honesty in his list of business virtues.