Thank You For Smoking - Movie Review Example

It can be said with absolute certainty that corporations, regardless of industry, have an ethical duty to fully disclose all aspects and details, both good and bad, of their products or services that they offer to their consumer bases. In fact, Immanuel Kant alluded to this, whether he realized it or not, when developing the philosophical concept of the categorical imperative. In 2007, a study by Carlson and Luhrs pointed out what Kant referred to in his 1785 essay, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

” In other words, there is a duty in ethics to adhere to principle and act honestly to avoid harm to others. There is a fundamental belief in the free enterprise system that when it comes to marketing product, an organization must hold steadfast to the idea that it must be completely forthright about their product rather than spinning the truth about the flaws, or even dangers, of its merchandise for the sake of driving the firm’s profits. While all of the rhetoric thus far may seem rudimentary in an age where we are inundated with marketing campaigns and gimmicks, all designed to drive consumers to purchase goods and services from these entities at an alarming pace, one industry seems to have slipped through the proverbial cracks when it comes to corporate ethics, accountability, and general morality: big tobacco.

Tobacco, while banned from producing TV commercials to push their particular brands, are still using highly effective marketing ploys to encourage consumers to purchase their goods, despite the lethally addictive nature of their products. Quite simply, the industry deceives its customer base to increase its profit margin by minimizing the effects of nicotine use and, in a rather brazen way, seems to pontificate that no studies have completely proven that regular tobacco consumption is ultimately fatal.

Of course, by spinning the truth, Big Tobacco has certainly profited from its dismissal of the stark reality that nicotine is killing its consumer base. Still yet, this flippant stance on the whole situation does beg the preponderance that perhaps its lax ethics on how it communicates product with the public will actually lead to its own demise. Interestingly enough, in 2006 Hollywood took a much closer look at this ethical dilemma in the movie Thank You for Smoking. Nick Naylor, company spokesman and resident spin doctor for Big Tobacco, finds himself caught in an ethical dilemma between full disclosure (albeit somewhat coerced by health officials) about the goods and services offered and financing his current lavish lifestyle by manipulating the truth about tobacco use, thereby covering for industry officials so they can continue their profit surge.

Compounded with this debacle is a sense that he must begin to exemplify better behavior for his 12-year-old son who is suddenly quite curious and inquisitive about Nick’s line of work. Naylor is living is a dichotomy of good and evil, as he must choose to either make the right move in life and publicly admit to all deterrents of his company’s product or continue to deceive others for the purposes of lining his own pockets. As the plot progresses and unfolds, and we become more engaged with the characters and their actions, it becomes quite clear that the decision path in this particular dilemma is muddied with not only monetary incentives but also with how others perceive Naylor and his conduct within his work as a spokesman for a lethal good, and how they, too, can capitalize from his ongoing plight of profiting from an industry that has turned him into a social pariah.

For example, Nick, having begrudgingly agreed to an interview with a journalist from an influential newspaper, ended up engaging in a torrid affair with this journalist, thinking that he had found a confidant he could turn to for the occasional catharsis of his job pitfalls. What he had done, albeit temporarily, was professionally propel her by feeding her inside information that she could use to break what would be considered by many to be a huge story. In the end, just as he had used so many people to gain both personally and financially in life, the journalist had also used him to develop her own career and, hopefully, turn a profit for herself.

In reality, they fell on their own swords through exaggerated arrogance in approaches to their own lines of work. Both, while never really out-right lying to their customer base, did spin words and ideas to make others truly commit to and purchase the product they were pushing, whether it was tobacco or the written word. While in the end both characters lost credibility, and personal relationships did suffer and wane, it can be said that they there was a financial gain that they experienced. That’s self-evident.

However, beyond fattened wallets, there was another gain that can be claimed: loyalty. Both were schooled on the importance of loyalty to not only their customer bases but also to their loved ones, and most critically, themselves. It is paramount that one can and should be able to look in the mirror everyday. The one tried and true way to maintain loyalty to oneself and others is by practicing honesty. The truth is so completely liberating that it is a natural high. If each person is honest with him- or herself, that strong moral and ethical conviction to level with others will only emulate from him or her, which leads to an infectious drive among people to start being more honest, transparent, and accountable.

If these beliefs continue to trend, the marketing communities for all industries would be forced to tailor their campaigns to adhere to the new societal standards of openness, honesty, and loyalty. After all, in the end, we’re all in this together. References Carlson, Matthew & Luhrs, Chris. (2007). The Ethics of Tobacco Marketing. Retrieved from