Ethical Dilemma Essay

The situation at hand involves an ethical decision between two possible courses of action relating to the promotion of tobacco as a product in the market. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is a corporation that earns huge amounts of money in selling tobacco and is concerned about keeping its profits despite the negative image now associated with tobacco. Therefore, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. hired Acme Global Advertising to again promote the product in the market. Being recommended by the company’s Director for Global Accounts as the new head of the R.  J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. account, I am constrained to decide whether to accept the position or not. There is no doubt that this is a once in a lifetime career opportunity, as the last manager to handle the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. account had already retired after receiving a huge sum of money after his successful campaign. Indeed, a successful promotional campaign would result in huge profit for both R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Acme Global Advertising, which would translate into big earnings for me. On the other hand, a simple refusal on my part would mean another eager person would immediately be taking my place and my big opportunity. The problem is not as simple as it looks, however. This is because the World Health Organization already declared tobacco as the second major cause of death in the world. Therefore, any effort on my side in promoting the consumption of tobacco would mean that I am personally exerting effort in favor of a product that causes death to millions of people arounf the world. It is clear, therefore, that the present situation presents an ethical dilemma that needs serious consideration. I have to make a decision between personal success and the health of innumerable people. In order to solve this dilemma, I turn to the philosophical writings of Aristotle in his work entitled Nicomachean Ethics, as well as utilitarian ethical philosophy as explained by well-known ethical philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Based on these ethical principles, I shall explain why it would be ethical for me to accept the challenge and exert my best effort in promoting the sales of tobacco products of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. this paper shall discuss the relevant principles characteristic of each theory, and then apply such principles to the facts of this particular scenario. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he expounded on the notion called virtue, which to him is that which determines the character or nature of anything, be it a person or a specific thing (Ross). Virtue is that thing which makes a knife a good knife, and it is also that which makes a man a good person (Ross). Aristotle makes a distinction between two kinds of virtue, namely natural virtue and moral virtue (Kilcullen). For him, the former relates to characteristics that humans possess from birth, such as a particular temperament (Kilcullen). On the other hand, the latter kind of virtue refers to the act of submitting one’s acts to reason (Kilcullen). It is in the latter kind of virtue that habit, an essential part of Aristotle’s ethical philosophy, enters the scene (Kilcullen). Aristotle posits that moral virtue is developed through habituation, whereby the exercise of reason results in a specific course of action (Kilcullen). Applying Aristotle’s ethical philosophy based on virtue and habit, I conclude that accepting the challenge would determine my character as a person in general, and as a leader in an advertising firm in particular. Accepting a project such as the one in the case would help me develop habits that would hone my leadership and creative skills, which would increase my competence as a leader. The other ethical philosophy that supports my decision is utilitarianism, which is a notion that belongs to the normative ethics tradition. Since the late 18th- and 19th-century, utilitarianism had been in existence to attempt to answer the question, â€Å"What ought a man to do? (West). † Utilitarian philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were the foremost believers in the school of thought, and their main thesis was that an action would only be considered morally right if it tends to promote happiness for the greatest number of people. This has been popularly known as the â€Å"Greatest Happiness Principle. † John Stuart Mill explained said ethical principle in 1863, when his published work entitled Utilitarianism came out. He explained, thus: The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure (Mill). It appears therefore, that utilitarianism attaches moral value, not on the motive behind man’s actions, but on the effect that such action makes on people. Bentham and Mill assumed that pleasure and pain are the basic motivations of man, such that he avoids pain and seeks pleasure (West). Applying this principle to my ethical dilemma, I deduce that accepting the project would promote the happiness of many people, namely, myself and the executives of the two corporations that would derive monetary benefits from the success of the project. The people who could be consuming tobacco would likewise find happiness in the availability of a product that they enjoy having, albeit this happiness comes with the danger of disease or even death. Nevertheless, I leave such choice to the holders of the lives concerned, namely, the consumers. It is, after all, ultimately their choice whether to remain healthy or otherwise. In sum, two ethical principles, namely Aristotelian and utilitarian ethics, support the decision to accept the position as head of the project and promote tobacco products.