Ethical Dilemma Essay

The blot at hand involves an honourable decision between cardinal possible courses of modus operandiion relating to the promotion of tobacco as a reaping 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 disdain the negative image now associated with tobacco. Therefore, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. hired natural elevation planetary Advertising to again support the product in the market.Being recommended by the companys Director for Global Accounts as the new detail of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. account, I am constrained to decide whether to choose the identify or non. There is no doubt that this is a once in a lifetime c beer opportunity, as the last manager to come up to the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. account had already retired after receiving a huge nerve centre of money after his successful go. 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 a nonher eager somebody 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 closing in the world. Therefore, any causa on my side in promoting the manipulation of tobacco would mean that I am personally exerting effort in favor of a product that causes death to millions of heap arounf the world.It is clear, therefore, that the present situation presents an ethical dilemma that needs serious consideration. I have to father a decision between personal success and the health of unlimited people. In order to solve this dilemma, I turn to the philosophical literary works of Aristotle in his work entitled Nicomachean Ethics, as well as useful ethica l philosophy as explained by well- cognise ethical philosophers rear 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 applicable principles pieceistic of each theory, and then apply such principles to the facts of this contingent scenario. In Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics, he expounded on the notion called honor, which to him is that which determines the character or constitution of any subject, be it a person or a ad hoc thing (Ross).Virtue is that thing which makes a knife a good knife, and it is similarly that which makes a man a good person (Ross). Aristotle makes a bank note between twain kinds of lawfulness, namely natural virtue and moral virtue (Kilcullen). For him, the former relates to characteristics that humans possess from birth, such as a particu lar temperament (Kilcullen). On the other hand, the latter kind of virtue refers to the act of submitting ones acts to reason (Kilcullen). It is in the latter kind of virtue that habit, an essential part of Aristotles ethical philosophy, enters the scene (Kilcullen).Aristotle posits that moral virtue is busted through habituation, whereby the exercise of reason results in a specific course of action (Kilcullen). Applying Aristotles 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 attractor in an advertising firm in particular. Accepting a stand out 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 prescriptive ethics tradition. Since the late 18th- and 19th-century, uti litarianism had been in existence to attempt to answer the question, 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 chastely right if it tends to promote happiness for the greatest number of people.This has been popularly known as the Greatest Happiness Principle. John Stuart Mill explained said ethical principle in 1863, when his published work entitled Utilitarianism came out. He explained, then 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, wrongly as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intend pleasance, and the absence of pain by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of sport (Mill).It appears therefore, that utilitarianism attaches moral value, not on the motive behind mans 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 disorder 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 prom ote tobacco products.