Business ethics: principles and practices

Ethics and Morality

CASE

Clean Hands in a Dirty Business"

Kantian would counsel the recent MBA graduate Janet to behave according to the dictates of the categorical imperative. Janet should behave as if she were setting the moral law for the entire universe, not merely herself. Janet believes that tobacco is a harmful product. She knows that it is immoral to market this product to anyone and especially to young people, who are not even supposed to be using tobacco products according to the laws of the land, anyway. According to the Kantian view, there is no moral or ethical justification for Janet to take this marketing job at the tobacco company. In doing so, Janet would violate not only her personal principles, but also the moral code she was setting for everyone else. The result of her actions, even if Janet improved the policies of the tobacco company in the short run, should not be part of the ethical decision-making process when Janet is contemplating if she should take the job or not take the job. Besides, if everyone behaved according to the categorical imperative, the Kantian will note (contrary to the friend Karen's counsel) there would not 'always' be someone to market tobacco. If enough persons in the world were encouraged to obey moral laws in the here and now, without rationalizing their decisions to behave differently with result-oriented justifications, then eventually there would be no one left to sell the harmful product.

For a utilitarian, however, the result would an issue. The utilitarian asks: how does Janet create the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals in the world? If Janet takes the job, greater harm might be alleviated for a greater number of persons. If Janet rejects the job, an even less principled person may take the position and create even more unethical campaigns, just like her friend Karen said. This would cause less happiness and more harm for more persons in the world.

But even from a utilitarian perspective, if one takes a slightly more long-term view, perpetuating societal harms like tobacco addiction is a detriment rather than a contributor to the happiness of the greatest number of persons in the world. The more people smoke, the higher the health care costs to society, as chronic smokers require long-term care for cancers of the mouth, throat, and lungs, and for emphysema, as well as for anti-nicotine patches, hypnosis, and other methods to stop smoking. Although the tobacco Janet would market is not smoked, it is an addictive substance, and thus it could easily lead to smoking nicotine-containing cigarettes later on in life, and cause harm through second-hand smoke to millions of other people. The societal costs to the legal system because of the lawsuits the product has inspired, and the unhappiness the product has caused for the target audience's families are another example of how the sum total happiness of society is reduced, rather than increased, if Janet takes the job. Also, the campaign is in violation of laws that prohibit minors from using tobacco, and by encouraging the violation of the laws of the land, society's total happiness is reduced, as persons (and marketing departments) feel free to behave and market products in a less law-abiding fashion.