Solving the moral dilemma of janet moore

Solving the moral dilemma of Janet Moore.
Janet Moore is torn between her need to find her first job and the ethical and moral dilemma that the job presents. I would decide to join the firm of Union Tobacco Inc. since there is no other job available. Further, when I join up and draw salary and wages, I would ensure that my duty of increasing the market share, finding new markets and increasing revenues are met. When a job is offered and salary is drawn, then the first allegiance is to the company and meeting its goals and targets. The role of a traitor who would subtly act against the best interests of the tobacco firm is not ethical. If there are any misgivings about the firm or if I don’t like the product and goals, then I should not join the firm. This reasoning applies for manufacturers of alcohol products and arms.
As per the case, the firm aggressively targets younger children with low-nicotine mint and cherry-flavoured products so that they would graduate to the two much stronger and best selling brands. The issue that arises now but which has not been mentioned in the case is how does the snuff product compare with cigarettes. The case does not mention the comparison between the two products for addiction and harm done to the body and it is further assumed that the two products have the same levels. Cigarette marketing and branding is widely accepted and if the addiction and harm levels are same, then the marketing job that Janet is exploring should be acceptable.
However, Janet has to take cognisance of the Kantian Philosophy of treating men as means to achieve an end. This attitude is callous as Kant argues that while men can be used as a means, they must be also treated as an end in themselves (Seidler, 1986). Therefore Janet has to realise that what her senior Karen says is also true, that they can use the job as a means to improve the firms image and to save peoples lives. There are a number of lawsuits being files about the dangers of the tobacco product. Soon the firm would be in serious trouble. Janet and Karen can use their training and education to modify the marketing campaign to bring in the principle of utility. A balance can be struck between obtaining the required sales revenues yet prevent younger age children from being targeted by the Ad campaigns.
Janet should take up the job more as a challenge and because she believes in the good that she can bring to kids. She could explore the concept of corporate social responsibility and ensure that the product carries enough health warnings and that people are aware of the dangers the product would cause. She could even target parents about the ill effects of the product and if kids still wanted to try the products, then she has tried all that she could do. Janet should work in the job for a couple of years and the lessons she learns should help her in her role in the future to be more responsible in the marketing functions. However, as long as she is drawing wages from the company, she should ensure that her main role and function of increasing the firms revenues and market share are met. She should also ensure that the negative publicity and negative image of the firm is reduced through the use of proper advertisements.
References
Seidler. Victor. J. 1986. Kant, Respect and Injustice, The limits of liberal moral theory. Routledge & Kegan Paul Plc. England.