Philip Morris - Right or
Wrong?
Con Philip
Morris
From a
Ph.D.
From
Jeff Bjorck, Ph.D.
Graduate School of Psychology
Fuller Theological Seminary
Greetings,
Just a few brief comments on the ethical dilemma regarding Philip Morris,
etc.
I agree that it is virtually impossible to disentangle oneself completely
from unethical (immoral) associations when dealing in the business world.
Virtually every company large enough to be public has multiple networking
connections, some of which are bound to link directly or indirectly to
something/someone with questionable practices. I would suggest, however,
that a company's MAIN IDENTITY is central to the image it wishes to communicate
to the general public. Primary focus of a company is important.
With this in mind, I would suggest that the main purpose of a company like
EXXON is not to dump oil in the ocean. The main purpose of GM is not to cause
auto fatalities. These companies' main products serve useful purposes and
promote the well being of humanity (albeit imperfectly!... hence the need
for accountability).
I would suggest that the main purpose of tobacco companies is to profit from
the sale of a product known to harm humanity, increase medical costs, and
shorten the life span of even those NOT using the product (e.g., second-hand
smoke). The fact that nicotine augmentation is a deliberate attempt to induce
addiction certainly adds to this picture.
Thus, I would suggest that those concerned with the MAIN product of a company
are not necessarily being short-sighted, provided that they do a thorough
investigation. The fact, however, that most people don't associate KRAFT
with MO reflects the fact that cheese is not their primary cash crop.
To close, as an alternative to your proposal (that we buy their stock and
then give their profits away to fight cancer), might not some individuals
also choose to increase holdings in other companies in exchange for a foolish
four stock, making the deliberate choose to plan for LESS profits? I believe
that such an approach will probably impact a company like MO more than your
suggestion (even though admittedly neither approach will likely make a huge
dent in their profits!).
In a country and culture where image is crucial to communication of values,
might we avoid companies who promote IMAGES that degrade the human condition
(e.g., the Marlborough Man), even if they also happen to own more neutral
companies (e.g., KRAFT)? Just a thought. And thanks again for your willingness
to consider such issues in online.
I continue to appreciate the Fool and follow regularly. Thanks for your ongoing
efforts! Fool on!
Sincerely,
Jeff Bjorck, Ph.D.
Graduate School of Psychology
Fuller Theological Seminary |