All of my friends from uni are currently applying for next year's graduate positions, and one in particular was offered a job at a particularly large maker of… tobacco products, in sales/marketing and an above-average salary.
My first reaction to this was "no way", on the basis that he would be selling and marketing products that *ahem* cause the deaths of many, many people around the world. Additionally, any "increases" in sales performance are, in reality, hurting people. A 25% increase in sales year-over-year means 25% more people are likely to die of lung cancer from the product being sold.
So my question is, should ethics be involved in choosing an employer? Personally, ethics definitely should play a part in the choice, but is that an approach that every person should take?
Obviously, this is an extreme case, but I think the example can be extended to companies that aren't socially responsible. Are you selling out by taking the money and working for a company whose values you don't agree with?
I think it depends on how much the individual stresses the importance of their own values. From a realist perspective, I think good money will do it for most people regardless of social responsibility or ethical concerns. But I’m sure there are people out there who don’t sleep easy at night because their job details moral and social implications. They are often the ones that “umm” and “ahh” when asked what they do for a living – and look really tired all the time.
Ahhh… but should it? In any case, is the money really worth it when you’re contributing to the misfortune of others?
Of course it shouldn’t but we are a selfish kind. Your misfortune is not my misfortune (objectively speaking).
So Jemmy, 3 of us actually have (close to) offers from this company you refer to.
Have you considered the alcohol industry? Alcoholism is also a dangerous addiction that can not only hurt the abuser but the violence that many exhibit will hurt others… just as passive smoking does.
Yet Jem, you drink.
That is your choice… it is a person’s choice to smoke.
The company has picked up on a demand, they are supplying for that demand in a very difficult environment.
As a company, they are not telling people to smoke, they make conscious efforts to inform EVERYONE of the consequences of smoking… they have taken a very ethical and moral approach to working in this not-so-glamorous industry.
Just my thoughts as a potential employee
But companies that produce alcoholic products do not produce high grade alcohol that is cheap, such that, it is cheaper than food.
Cigarette companies have, for years, produced cigarettes that are unsellable in their respective countries. As a result, they dump these ciggarettes into 3rd world countries (eg Swaziland). Since cigarettes suppress hunger, and cigarettes are cheaper than food, what would you do as a starving 10 year old?
What is the ethical and moral stance on doing something like this?
Im sure that in Swaziland, moonshine comes by the barrel full. In fact from a direct source who has travelled to Swaziland, alcoholism is one of the greatest causes of death.
As a helpless mother or father with no food, no hope and several children, what would you do if you had access to the wonders of alcohol for an extremely low cost?
Will, I believe your issue with tobacco companies is just a subset of a much greater problem - the predicament of poverty stricken third world countries.
Alcoholism may be a great cause of death (drink driving, alcohol abuse, etc) but unless you can narrow down what you are talking about, alcohol is a source of death around the world. The difference between an organisation that produces alcohol and one that produces cigarettes is vastly different. As I mentioned, do alcohol companies sell drinks which are unsellable at dirt cheap prices – such that it is cheaper than say, water? NO. Since cigarettes and food are comparable (in that a member of a third world nation may use it to supress hunger), you cannot compare alcohol and water.
Alcohol does not suppress hunger as cigarettes do. Cigarettes are also cheaper than alcohol. Therefore, your argument is flawed in that you have considered what I have said. Rather, choosing the fact that I chose Swaziland as an example – because I know for a fact that a company (that shall remain nameless) does dump illegal (bearing high nicotine concentration) cigarettes in this nation.
I believe that if you want to argue, get your facts right.
I dont believe my facts were flawed. Plain and simple they refer to alcohol being a main cause of death in Swaziland.
I understand what your’e saying, you suggest that these evil companies are dumping unsalable cigarettes on 3rd world countries as they have found that cigarettes are in high consumption in areas where there is a lack of food as the demand is high. However, if you divert your attention from the ‘unethical, evil’ tobacco companies (that shall remain nameless) you will realise that Swaziland residents are doing themselves more harm…
“According to a study by Swaziland’s Council on Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco Abuse, 70% of smallholder farmers in the Hhohho region grow marijuana (Dagga) as a cash crop…They [also] admitted to IRIN to supplying marijuana to the growing number of people suffering from AIDS in the country, a move that has been abetted by AIDS support groups, who say dagga encourages the appetite of AIDS sufferers. “Particularly when you are starting with the anti-retroviral drugs, your body can feel bad and you don’t want to eat anything — that is when people become thin,”
This capatilisation of an appetite supressant seems to extend beyond just cigarettes, the locals are cashing in too. It appears that the bigger picture here is the nation’s continual problem with drugs and alcohol abuse. Tobacco companies merely supply a demand which evidently exists.
I’m sure you could find hundreds of unsafe/harmful products which are ‘dumped’ in these types of countries if you looked hard enough.
So i guess your argument then Will is not about tobacco companies, but rather companies who dump unsalable goods on 3rd world countries.
P.S. in regard to flawed facts, if according to your arguments above, cigarettes substitute to food but alcohol cannot be compared to food, then how can you compare alcohol to cigarettes?
1. You have plenty of time on your hands for a person who is constantly busy at work. At least I admit that sometimes I am busy, and sometimes I am not
2. No, the topic of this discussion is plain and simple “Are there ethics involved in choosing your employer?”, so therefore my argument is not about any company that dumps unsalable goods into 3rd world countries, rather, it is about choosing an employer who socially responsible.
“Tobacco companies merely supply a demand which evidently exists” — does this mean that heroin dealers should exist because there is a demand for it?
“how can you compare alcohol to cigarettes?” — the only comparison i have made regarding alcohol and cigarettes is price. If you read correctly it is saying that
a. Cigarettes can be used to supress hunger, as a third world country, why wouldn’t you smoke given that cigarettes are cheaper than food
b. Alcohol is compared to water because water they are both liquids, alcohol doesn’t make you less hungry than you are.
In essence Rob, my argument is about the initial topic, having ethics when choosing an employer. If I looked hard enough i would find lots of products, but none of which have clear, definitive and highly publicised scrutiny behind them.
SICK
I dont have time on my hands to argue about semantics, your obviously hell bent on tooting your own horn. I shall leave you with your ego in tact.
That’s right b!tch, walk away
William, apologise to that boy now!
Wow, what a difficult topic! In an ideal world, I think that there are ethics involved in choosing your employer. From a different perspective, if working for a company that manufacturers cigarettes or alcohol is your ONLY option for employment, it is certainly better to gain employment than to remain unemployed.
DenMan7
http://www.About-Alcohol-Testing.com