|
Contractual view in Smoking- Ethical approach?
Link |
by
 
on 2009-03-21 12:27:00 |
|
My Business Ethics lecturer gave us a sheet about an article on Phillip Morris' mission statement. This company is known for selling cigarettes under the brand Marlboro. The company were pressurised to keep up with the standards in order to win back society's hearts, due to massive outrage on the hazards over smoking in the long run. They put disclaimers and warning hazards on the product and on their website. It's obviously odd for a company who puts disclaimers to show their consideration to the people, which we know they only want to make profits from selling cigarettes, regardless of the level of disease in each consumer. I think the company use the Contractual View approach, where both parties have full knowledge in entering the contract (disclaimers and hazards are like designated terms and conditions), no forcing in contract (the terms will either affect the consumer's choice or not) and no misleading of information in the contract (obviously, back to disclaimers and hazards). There's no point bickering over smokers. Most smokers are addicted, and they really cannot do anything to stop (nicotine patches and gums won't guarantee full wipeout craving). At least it makes profits to the company who is not necessarily bad--- it's business. I don't smoke, but yes, I do get annoyed if I see smokers and I don't like inhaling the smokes. But in terms of profitability, the company has to do what is 'ethical' enough to the society--- they have to pay costs associated with the production and selling and distribution. All I want to say is contractual view is the ethical approach for business like this. It's up to the consumers to enter into the contract (buying a pack of cigs), although indirect, but it still counts. |
|
Re: Contractual view in Smoking- Ethical approach?
|
|
Obviously after being in huge legal battles against states wanting compensation for the cost they had due to smokers in their regions, as well as smokers also demanding compensation for the damages to their health; they decided to let it clear that their product is harmful. Finally they heard their legal department XD One of the fundamental principles in Contract Law is of the autonomy of wills (I'm not sure if that's the right translation to the english). So if such autonomy is damaged, whether by the will of one of the parts to cause problems to the other, or by ignorance of the effects or terms (any of the myriad circumstances that can affect the formation of the wills must be really well proofed, because counterbalancing such principle you got the one based on the pacta sunt servanda, contracts must be obliged), the part that had its autonomy diminished can ask for judicial protection, which will include the paying back of the money already given and the rightful compensation for the damages such contract had created. So like, you can understand why, though not reasonable for many, asking for the tobacco companies to pay compensations was possible. So, since the exposed all the consequences, if you want start or keep smoking, you clearly know what are you doing and what'll happen, you're contracting with the company on your own freewill, putting aside any possibility to sue them afterwards, in theory of course. It's the ethical thing to do, it complies with the bona fides principle. I wonder if at every fast food place will be like a big sign about the problems related to health concerns related to their products, with the saying that "by buying on any of the above mentioned products, the PART is agreeing with the present dispositions". I just wonder if someone already have sued any of the fast food giants already XD |