I would have a moral conflict if I worked for a tobacco company.

Their goods are

addictive and dangerous, and in the past, they have participated in dishonest manufacturing and

marketing techniques that have led to significant injury and fatalities (Ashkenas, 2013).

However, in modern times, tobacco businesses offer legal products in much more

controlled ways and invest millions of dollars in research to lessen the negative consequences of

their products. They are also developing safer substitutes, like e-cigarettes, for their products.

Actually, tobacco corporations successfully compete with their own products in marketing. As a

result, the number of smokers has steadily decreased, according to data from the Centers for

Disease Control (CDC) (Ashkenas, 2013).

Transparency, impact, and fairness were listed by the Institute of Business Ethics

as three criteria to consider while making business decisions. While transparency may have

risen, it hasn't improved the fairness or the impact on smokers in particular (Stanwick &

Stanwick ,2016). Although they may behave morally well towards most internal corporate

stakeholders, including shareholders, workers, regulatory bodies, and recipients of sustainability

efforts, the harm they cause to customers and the community (through secondhand smoking) is

considerable. This is due to the negative effects smoking has on both the health of smokers and

others around them. The harm can take the form of chronic diseases, general health deterioration,

and ultimately a death that could have been avoided.

The CDC (2017) identified smoking as the primary preventable cause of mortality

in the United States, accounting for more than 480,000 fatalities annually. These deaths

outnumber those caused by AIDS, illicit drug use, alcoholism, auto accidents, and occurrences

involving firearms put together. Additionally, smoking is responsible for 80% of chronic

obstructive pulmonary disease and 90% of lung cancer deaths.

 As such the moral intensity of decisions to work for and even let cigarette

companies continue to operate have on smokers is: a high magnitude of consequences, high

probability of effects, high proximity effect (if products are sold within the same communities)

and a strong concentration effect (Stanwick & Stanwick ,2016).

In conclusion, cigarette companies may have made improvements in their

business practices, transparency, and adherence to societally established legal norms, such as

anti-smoking regulations.  However, the moral intensity of their actions on smokers is too great

as cigarette smoking harms nearly every organ of the body, causes many diseases, and reduces

the health of smokers, leaves them with expensive hospital costs, and places a strain on

government health budgets.

References

Ashkenas, R. (2013). Would You Work for a Tobacco Company? Retrieved from:

https://hbr.org/2013/11/would-you-work-for-a-tobacco-company

CDC. (2017). Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking. Retrieved from:

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/inde

x.htm

Stanwick, P, & Stanwick, S. (2016). Understanding Business Ethics (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications. ISBN- 978-1506303239