Although the tobacco Janet would market is not smoked, it is an addictive substance, and thus it could easily lead to smoking nicotine-containing cigarettes later on in life, and cause harm through second-hand smoke to millions of other people. The societal costs to the legal system because of the lawsuits the product has inspired, and the unhappiness the product has caused for the target audience's families are another example of how the sum total happiness of society is reduced, rather than increased, if Janet takes the job. Also, the campaign is in violation of laws that prohibit minors from using tobacco, and by encouraging the violation of the laws of the land, society's total happiness is reduced, as persons (and marketing departments) feel free to behave and market products in a less law-abiding fashion.
Finally, the idea that Janet can help herself and her future career by taking the job is specious, in the point-of-view of both the Kantian and...
The Kantian argues that the act, not the result is what is important. Janet's future career should not be an issue when making the decision. The utilitarian argues that the greatest societal good for the greatest number should be the goal of all moral actions. Janet's singular future happiness is not important, unless Janet argues that advancing her career because of her great talent and morality in business is so important, it is fine for her to take whatever job she can get, to improve her resume and thus improve her job prospects and human happiness in total, in the very long run. But even from this rather egocentric perspective, one could argue that adding such a dubious marketing campaign to Janet's resume may act as a detriment rather than a boon to Janet's future job prospects. Waiting a bit and adding her talents to a campaign that contributes to the happiness of more persons would be better for society as well as for Janet's job prospects.
