Should She Take the Job? A Kantian and Utilitarian Ethics Analysis
This paper applies three major ethical frameworks to a practical career dilemma: whether a marketing professional should accept a job that involves promoting chewing tobacco to children. Using Kant's deontological ethics, Mill's utilitarianism, and Plato's virtue ethics, the paper evaluates arguments both for and against accepting the position. Kantian duty-based reasoning and virtue ethics both point toward rejecting the job, while utilitarian analysis offers a more flexible case for acceptance based on potential positive outcomes. The paper concludes that, weighing the candidate's own values alongside Kantian and virtue-based principles, the job should be declined.
- Introduction: Overview of the marketing job ethical dilemma
- Kantian Deontological Analysis: Duty-based reasoning argues against accepting the job
- Mill's Utilitarian Perspective: Outcome-based reasoning offers a case for acceptance
- Virtue Ethics and the TV Test: Platonic virtue ethics and personal integrity test
- Conclusion: Final recommendation to decline the position
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Applies three distinct ethical frameworks — Kantian deontology, Millian utilitarianism, and Platonic virtue ethics — to a single concrete scenario, demonstrating comparative ethical reasoning.
- Acknowledges tension within each framework, particularly utilitarianism, by presenting both the case for and against accepting the job before drawing a conclusion.
- Grounds abstract theory in a real-world dilemma involving child protection and professional responsibility, making the argument accessible and applied.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied normative ethics: rather than describing ethical theories in the abstract, it systematically tests each framework against a specific scenario. This approach — presenting each theory's verdict in turn and then weighing them against the agent's personal values — is a hallmark of undergraduate applied ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief introduction establishing the dilemma and previewing the frameworks to be used. It then devotes one paragraph each to Kantian ethics, utilitarian analysis (split across consequentialist pros and cons), and virtue ethics with the TV test heuristic. A short concluding paragraph synthesizes the findings and states the overall recommendation. The structure is tight and well-suited to a short argumentative ethics essay.
Introduction
The scenario presents a difficult ethical decision: should a marketing professional accept a job that includes encouraging children to buy harmful chewing tobacco? There are arguments both for and against acceptance. If she takes the job, she may be able to steer the marketing approach away from children; however, if she declines, another candidate — potentially one with fewer reservations — may be recruited instead. This dilemma can be examined using Kant's deontological approach, where duty should guide actions rather than consideration of potential outcomes (Sullivan, 2008), and an alternative framework such as Mill's utilitarian approach (Teulon, 2014).
Kantian Deontological Analysis
Selling tobacco to children is a harmful act, and there is a general consensus in contemporary society that there exists a duty to protect children. This is evidenced by the extensive regulation and control in the Western world that prohibits and restricts the marketing of harmful products — such as cigarettes — to children (Brownell & Warner, 2009). This clearly indicates that society would advocate for a duty to protect children. Applying this to the scenario at hand, the duty is to protect children; this duty cannot be upheld while simultaneously marketing harmful products to them, so the job should be rejected.
Importantly, the deontological model of ethics rejects the idea of making a decision based on potential outcomes, arguing that outcomes are not certain and therefore cannot be known (Sullivan, 2008). This means that if she were to take the job with the intention of changing the marketing strategy, that intention should carry no ethical weight, since there is no guarantee she would be able to achieve it. The duty therefore remains: to refrain from supporting or undertaking actions that will harm children. Furthermore, if she accepts the job, she would be using the firm — and the children who buy its products — to further her own needs. Kant's framework does not permit people to be used as a means to an end.
Mill's Utilitarian Perspective
Applying Mill's utilitarian approach introduces a more flexible framework that allows for consideration of the potential outcomes of a decision. If she takes the job, one outcome may be that her skills are used to sell to children — an outcome contrary to both her own ideals and her sense of duty. However, accepting the position also carries the potential for her to reduce harm by redirecting marketing strategies away from children. This view would encourage her to take the job, supported by the argument that it may be better for someone with genuine concerns to hold the role than someone who would market directly and without reservation to children.
Under Mill's utilitarian approach, the decision should be made with regard to which action will produce the greatest amount of happiness. There are many potential positives if she accepts the job. She would gain employment and generate income, and she would acquire valuable professional experience. Accepting the position might also satisfy her family. If she performs well, she would benefit many other stakeholders within the firm — protecting the jobs of workers who themselves have families to support, while also contributing to profit generation for shareholders. Applying this model, a justifiable case can be made for accepting the job.
Conclusion
While there are arguments both for and against accepting the job, taking her own values into account alongside the guidance offered by Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, and the TV test, the conclusion is that the job should not be accepted.
References
Brownell, K. D., & Warner, K. E. (2009). The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food? The Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 259–294.
Sullivan, R. J. (2008). An introduction to Kant's ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Teulon, F. (2014). Ethics, moral philosophy and economics (No. 2014–288). IPAG Business School. Retrieved from http://www.ipag.fr/wp-content/uploads/recherche/WP/IPAG_WP_2014_288.pdf
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.