The morality bluffing on a Rossian theory of right and wrong

            Among many reasons, why we are different creatures than others; we do help each other in time of crisis, we have law and regulation to follow, and we are at least clam that we are social animals who are morally and ethically responsible for what we do. If we are not keeping these things that hold us together for better, I don’ know what makes us unique. A fully adequate discussion of the morality of bluffing would require a definitive treatment of foundation questions in normative ethics.  People have different interpretations of bluffing. Some argue that bluffing is normal thing in one society for different reasons. Whether in business or personal reasons because the goal of bluffing is quite simple: to enhance the strength of one's position during negotiations. On the other hand, some argue that "there are a number of ultimate moral obligations: the duty to keep promise, the duty not to lie, the duty to gratitude, and duty of not to harm others. Thus misstating one position typically consciously lying should not be plausible in on society for any reasons. Therefore, I will try to support the Morality bluffing theory of right and wrong by Rossian, and show my concern on his analysis.

                 Rossian moral theory:  "misstating one's bargaining position would seem to be prima facie wrong; not only on account of the economic harm it causes others, but also on account of the harm it causes the agent's characters. it is also prima facie wrong on account of the fact that it undermines trust between human beings.  I could not agree more with this theory, however when we are against to one theory or practical action we ought to have the alternative which is pretty hard to have one right now, even though it may sound harsh and unreasonable not permitting bluffing, it is my believe that it won’t be good to let bluffing as a normal thing in a society, and it doesn't not serve well everyone.  Attempting to deceive others or deceiving others should not be plausible, however if it does allow to work in a society, tension will create and it will be agley. In other word, “if the certain act is always wrong no matter what, then it makes no sense to ask whether there are any moral considerations which might serve to justify it." As much as it is plausible for all human to not bluff or lie for any reasons , the practicality of the theory troubles  me yet i convinced that if we take bluffing as normal or business or individual activity it will not be good for general public. "Albert car Saied; misstating one's negotiation position is morally permissible. As bluffing is   permissible according to special rule of poker, so it is permissible according to the rules of business. “This was a lie yet within the accepted rule of business game, no moral culpability attaches to it.  But here is my thought for this example, laying someone for advancing one's personal interest shouldn't be seen as a game.