Complete reflection piece by answering one of these questions in the homework journal, found under the Homework Journal link. I expect about 200-300 words:
At the beginning of the Carr’s article, he quotes the British statesman, Henry Taylor, who said that “falsehood ceases to be falsehood when it is understood on all sides that the truth is not expected to be spoken.” Is he right?
Answer this in the context of material in the rest of the article.
Carr uses the poker example as a justification bluffing in business. What’s good about this analogy? What’s wrong with it? Does this analogy ultimately hold water as a justification for bluffing?
Bowie objects to bluffing largely because it is counter-productive. Even Carr admits, by the end of his article, that “the better [a business person’s] reputation for integrity, honesty and decency, the better [her] chances of victory will be in the long run.” It sounds like even Carr is hedging his bets. So is there an issue after all? Should people just tell the truth always? Why or why not?