2017: “Lying in a job interview is always wrong. If you lie, you make it impossible for the
interviewers to find the best possible candidate. But the interviewers have a right to try and find the
best possible candidate.” Discuss.
2016: Suppose that you are a candidate in job interview and the HR representative quizzes you
about what websites you visit and how frequently you do so. Is it morally permissible to
misrepresent the facts in order to make your
Have to tell the truth because it’s morally important that the best candidate gets the job as this
maximises utility => not clear what would be the morally right thing to do.
Lying can be bad cause it can be used to manipulate. By lying, you are being disrespectful, you are
using the other person in order to promote your interest. The moral problem with lies is that they are
manipulative. In a job interview context, some lies are admissible because it is understood that it is
your task to convince the interviewers that you are right for the job.
To some extent, you are a better candidate for the job if you (i) know what the interviewers are
looking for, and are (ii) willing and (iii) able to act the part. It can work out to your advantage if you
stretch the truth a bit in the interview to make yourself look better, but you could also end up getting
a job that you will actually hate cause it’s not the right fit for you,
You cross a moral line when you violate legitimate expectations in a way that threatens to cause
harm => being manipulative in this case is illegitimate. (Hard to see where this line is exactly)
Point 1 (It is morally permissible)
- This is justified under the fact that this was a profitable use of the strategy of bluff; he had made
a game player’s decision, consistent with business ethics.
- With reference to the reading by Carr, if the individual refuses to bluff from time to time, telling
nothing but the whole truth, then he/she is ignoring opportunities permitted under the rules and is
at a huge disadvantage.
- However, prior to making a profitable use of the strategy of bluff, individual needs to ensure that
in bluffing, he/she will not lose self-respect of become emotionally disturbed. If he is to reconcile
personal integrity and high standards of honesty with the practical requirements of business, he
must feel that his bluffs are ethically justified (The justification rests on the fact that business, as
practiced by individuals as well as by corporations, has the impersonal character of a game — a
game that demands both special strategy and an understanding of its special ethics)
- Carr alludes this strategy with a Poker analogy: Business and poker: in the long run, the winner is
the man who plays with steady skill. In both games ultimate victory requires intimate knowledge
of the rules, insight into the psychology of the other players, a bold front, a considerable amount
of self-discipline and the ability to respond...