Comments on "Thank you for smoking" by Jason Reitman in the light of business ethics

Résumé du document

"Thank you For Smoking" is a movie from 2005, about a tobacco industry lobbyist, Nick Naylor. As the negative effects of tobacco on health are no longer easy to deny, the tobacco companies join in the creation of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. The purpose of this academy is to prove scientifically that tobacco is not addictive, or that nicotine and lung cancer are linked in any way. Nick Naylor describes his work in these terms: "I get paid to talk. I don't have an MD or law degree, I've got a bachelor in kicking ass and taking names". He's the spin control specialist, and he really enjoys it. The first scene of the movie is a perfect example of Nick Naylor's talent to spin. On a TV show, surrounded by anti-tobacco associations and a young boy dying from cancer, Nick ends up accusing the associations from profiting off the death of the cancer boy, and proves the concern of tobacco companies for the American children by announcing the launch of a 50 million dollars campaign aimed at persuading kids not to smoke.

Extraits

[...] The other mistake in Nick's reasoning is the fact that “playing by the rules” is justification enough. Of course, the opponents of tobacco also use spin control, shocking images and smart mottos to manipulate people's opinion. And of course, lots of them also do that for their own personal interest and not out of a desire to save the world. These are the rules of the game. Nobody has to accept them either. The facts can be distinguished from all this noise, and they still state clearly that cigarettes are addictive, and directly linked to lung cancer and other deadly diseases. [...]

[...] It'd be morally presumptuous.” I consider Nick's point of view towards ethics to be similar to virtue ethics. The virtue Nick emphasizes here is critical thinking, and freedom of opinion. Nick is mostly honest in his affirmations, respects its opponents' right to disagree and is very franc about his actions, even towards his son, which is not that easy. He also has the courage of being universally hated and still going on with his job. These are the virtues he values. [...]

[...] His position when he talks to his son, Joey, is to promote critical thinking and freedom of opinion. And he keeps on with this line of speech, even if Joey's mother and her new boyfriend disapprove. As a matter of fact, he even takes his kid to Los Angeles where he has to meet with an important guy of the movie industry, to show him what his work consists of. There, he fixes a deal for product placement in a sci-fi blockbuster, to get the image of tobacco back. [...]

[...] He really believes that it's ok to shake people's opinion, and to confuse them about their certainties. He's perfectly conscious of how manipulative the methods he uses are, but one of the smartest points of the movie is that its opponents are using the same techniques. They're just not as good at it as he is. He sees himself as doing a job similar to the job of a defense lawyer, and as such doesn't feel that much remorse in defending the guilty party: I do what I do, defending the defenseless, protecting the disenfranchised corporations that have been abandoned by their very own consumers” As he says himself to his son, morals are not just about black and white: you go to an office, then you go on TV and talk about cigarettes. [...]

[...] Sometimes, the client is guilty and will walk out a free man, but the entire judicial system requires proofs, evidence, and certainty in order to condemn someone. If the client goes and commit another crime, the lawyer can't really be considered responsible. But here, not only is the client guilty, but the lobbyist intervenes even before the actions he's going to take to advise him. If nobody was able to present tobacco under such a favorable light, tobacco wouldn't sell as well, and maybe, in time, it wouldn't be considered worth the effort. [...]