How would you solve the moral dilemma of Janet Moore? Janet is faced with the dilemma of whether to choose a position where she can gain the needed experience to move on to a better job in which she would be required to compromise her beliefs, or to walk away from the opportunity knowing that she may not otherwise get enough experience to qualify for a better job. I think many recent MBA graduates have experienced something similar with the market wanting candidates with experience. There are a few things to consider in Janet’s situation before she can make a decision: 1) Is there a guarantee she would even be hired for the position? 2) As a marketer, would she be required to market to underage tobacco users 3) The scenario states she wasn’t able to get a position in her chosen field, but she could always take a different type of position besides marketing such as sales and then work towards a department transfer later. Moore should be a little more realistic in looking for a “dream job” that doesn’t usually pop up right after college. With these thoughts in mind, Janet could take a position in a different company that wasn’t in marketing, but try to be involved in projects that helped her gain marketing experience so she could transfer to that department later if a position came open. She should walk away from an opportunity where she feels uneasy about the work she is to perform and the company’s ideals.
Is you reasoning consistent or inconsistent with the Kantian idea that people should be treated as ends and never as mere means to an end? If we apply the categorical imperative in this case we see a couple of things. Kant advises never to treat a person as only a means. If Janet takes the position with the company, and ignores who she feels about the consumers she feels are being targeted, she is using the consumer only as a means to get her in a position to be qualified for another job.
Another thought comes to mind in regards to applying the Universalizability Principle. The example of the loan repayment in Boatright’s text (pg.56) talks of a person entering an agreement knowing they will not be able to fulfill the terms. This “lying promise” could apply in Moor’s situation if she was to accept the position, knowing she would not be carrying out the company’s plans to market the products. This in itself may actually cost her the job in the long run, and she would not be better off then she was prior to acceptance.

2) Is your reasoning and decision consistent or inconsistent with a utilitarian calculation that applies the principle of utility? In applying the principle of utilitarianism, one must ask if the action produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone involved. This one is a little more ambiguous in this scenario. In stepping away from the opportunity, Moore would be applying this principle in theory- as in marketing to underage users a product that is known to be cancer causing would not benefit the greater good. The truth is, as long as the company exists, and someone is there to conduct the marketing, the greater good would not be served. Moore would experience the immediate pain of not having the job, and the youth would still be targeted by the company, because that is not something in Moore’s control. This application of utilitarianism is based more on act utilitarianism rather than rule utilitarianism. In application of rule utilitarianism, it could be considered that Moore would be telling a lie if she didn’t intend to market to the target audience once hired, or planned on undermining the corporate objectives. In that case, using a strict rule utilitarian approach, she would be acting against the principles if she took the position.
Solomon speaks of the concept of virtue. In compromising virtue, Moore could take the position in a company that committed acts she found appalling and could rationalize that it was the best option that would have immediately satisfied Moore’s need to earn an income. If we were to change a few things in the scenario, would the same choice have been made by Moore? Relativism is a concept in this case study, as Moore has an obligation to behave according to her values when dealing with people whose values may be different. The tobacco company has a different set of values and if Moore did not believe it was wrong to promote tobacco products that could cause serious health concerns, then it wouldn’t have been a moral dilemma at all. Let’s say it was a wine distributor instead. If Moore enjoys wine and doesn’t feel the company is promoting to a group it could harm, she wouldn’t question taking the job. If she believes it is wrong to consume alcohol for religious regions, she may back right back to the original dilemma with a question of compromising her values in the name of a paycheck.

The Aristotelian approach to business ethics surmises that business must be considered as an essential part of the good life, but not focus on monetary gains only. In this concept, if a person cannot have a sense of self-respect and be proud of the work done, then they would not be living according to the principle. While this differs from the other principles because it does not focus on the “greater good”, it can be used in conjunction with the others theories to make a decision. In a case like this where the concept of utilitarianism may be vague, it can be a good measurement as to what the best personal decision would be. Moore is appalled by the company and would not be happy as a part of it, therefore it should be avoided