" The means do not justify the end. Kant is stang that. Kant is saying that one individual, in this case Janet, cannot use another person, Karen, as a means to an end. A person must never use another for his/her own purposes. In this case, Karen is not only accepting the fact that she is a means to an end, but she is promoting the idea -- namely, because it justifies her own actions. She will not be alone with her own moral decision. However in a wider sense, based on Kant, Janet is using all human beings as a means to justify her ends. Here, the ethical considerations are much greater. To the contrary, from a utiliatarian point-of-view, the consequences or result of an action make that action either moral or immoral. An action that leads to beneficial or positive consequences is right or moral and one that leads to harmful or negative consequences is wrong or immoral. In short, utilitarianism calls for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians often state the greatest good equates to the greatest happiness. A person's moral duty is to maximize human happiness and to minimize unhappiness -- in the short- and long-term. The question for Janet, then, is whether her work will be the best way to impact the most people. Will her work inside the company help more people than it will harm. Will her work maximize...

Let it be assumed that Janet's future will be positively enhanced this job and that, like Karen, she resolves her moral dilemma. Based on Kant and Mills, then, she must answer the following questions:
Is her decision "rule" one that should be universally followed?

Does the means of using others justify the end?

Is working in the company the way to make the most people happy and to do the greatest benefit?

Based on this, Janet should not take the job. What would happen if everyone worked for companies they morally did not accept, because maybe they could help one or two people? What would be the end to this means? If Janet works inside to make changes, she is working against the happiness of others. Understandably, her work will make more people happy than unhappy (her marketing materials will benefit more people than not). However, if she is so morally outraged by this company's product, she has the option to join others who are working from the outside to make an impact. Then, she would not be compromising her values, she would not be using others as a means for her own end, and (from her viewpoint) if the product is eliminated, she has benefited all those who would have become ill or died.