Unit 4 – Written Assignment
Ethics are defined as moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior. (Google, n.d.) In this case study analysis the Government of India (GOI) and their involvement in the potential ban on tobacco companies and the way they advertise will be reviewed. The main question: Is a ban on tobacco advertising ethical? We will review the pros, the cons, the potential Conflict of Interest (COI) GOI may face, and I will provide my opinion through my analysis on what should happen in regards to tobacco advertising.
Governments are present to serve the people. They are supposed to protect from harm, and provide services to better citizens. Governments are comprised of elected officials who represent countries at …show more content…
If they are free and value freedom for it’s people, how could they possibly justify taking that away by imposing a ban. Excess of anything is a terrible thing, so if the ban on tobacco achieved, where will the line be drawn. The GOI may also face a conflict because jobs are crucial to livelihood, and the potential loss of jobs will affect that, and hurt the very thing that they are there to protect…..the people. In reviewing Chapter 3, Section 5.1 and 5.2 related to Ethics in our class text it outlines a strategic way to determine if the decisions I intend to make are in fact ethical. To form my own opinions about this issue, I turned to the outline and answered the following questions from a viewpoint of the GOI:
1. What is being asked of me, and who will be harmed? I am being asked not to place a ban on the advertisement of tobacco products or sponsorship of events. If I don’t place the ban, people may be harmed. My reputation may be harmed because I may be viewed as though I do not care about the people, and I condone people from participating in harmful acts. If I do place this ban jobs may be hurt which will also affect the people.
2. What is the view of the stakeholders? In this case I believe the stakeholders are the people. The people may lose trust in the GOI because by doing nothing, we are silently condoning the …show more content…
Are there any alternatives? The alternatives may be to tighten regulations but not impose a full ban on tobacco advertising, and also not taxing the product to ensure we don’t profit from the harm of citizens. The consequences may be a loss of revenue. The duties and rights are to protect the people, and this alternative may not entirely do that. The implications would be that we are not acting entirely ethically which would cause distrust.
4. How do I feel? If I do no impose a ban I feel terrible.
5. What is my decision? I am deciding to impose the ban on the advertisement of tobacco and sponsorship of events. It is my duty as a GOI member to protect the citizens and act ethically. I cannot stand by and allow these companies to fill local publications and events with their propaganda. I will not ban the sales of tobacco because the people have a right to freedom of choice, but I cannot ethically stand by and watch companies try to lure people into something that is harmful.
6. Monitor outcomes.
Through this analysis you can see my thought process and how I arrived at the decision that the GOI should impose a ban on tobacco companies. This is a tough subject but as a former smoker myself, I can honestly say that if a government made that decision I would not be offended. If individuals want to smoke they can, and if they need information to ensure they make informed decisions they can seek it out
Ethics are defined as moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior. (Google, n.d.) In this case study analysis the Government of India (GOI) and their involvement in the potential ban on tobacco companies and the way they advertise will be reviewed. The main question: Is a ban on tobacco advertising ethical? We will review the pros, the cons, the potential Conflict of Interest (COI) GOI may face, and I will provide my opinion through my analysis on what should happen in regards to tobacco advertising.
Governments are present to serve the people. They are supposed to protect from harm, and provide services to better citizens. Governments are comprised of elected officials who represent countries at …show more content…
If they are free and value freedom for it’s people, how could they possibly justify taking that away by imposing a ban. Excess of anything is a terrible thing, so if the ban on tobacco achieved, where will the line be drawn. The GOI may also face a conflict because jobs are crucial to livelihood, and the potential loss of jobs will affect that, and hurt the very thing that they are there to protect…..the people. In reviewing Chapter 3, Section 5.1 and 5.2 related to Ethics in our class text it outlines a strategic way to determine if the decisions I intend to make are in fact ethical. To form my own opinions about this issue, I turned to the outline and answered the following questions from a viewpoint of the GOI:
1. What is being asked of me, and who will be harmed? I am being asked not to place a ban on the advertisement of tobacco products or sponsorship of events. If I don’t place the ban, people may be harmed. My reputation may be harmed because I may be viewed as though I do not care about the people, and I condone people from participating in harmful acts. If I do place this ban jobs may be hurt which will also affect the people.
2. What is the view of the stakeholders? In this case I believe the stakeholders are the people. The people may lose trust in the GOI because by doing nothing, we are silently condoning the …show more content…
Are there any alternatives? The alternatives may be to tighten regulations but not impose a full ban on tobacco advertising, and also not taxing the product to ensure we don’t profit from the harm of citizens. The consequences may be a loss of revenue. The duties and rights are to protect the people, and this alternative may not entirely do that. The implications would be that we are not acting entirely ethically which would cause distrust.
4. How do I feel? If I do no impose a ban I feel terrible.
5. What is my decision? I am deciding to impose the ban on the advertisement of tobacco and sponsorship of events. It is my duty as a GOI member to protect the citizens and act ethically. I cannot stand by and allow these companies to fill local publications and events with their propaganda. I will not ban the sales of tobacco because the people have a right to freedom of choice, but I cannot ethically stand by and watch companies try to lure people into something that is harmful.
6. Monitor outcomes.
Through this analysis you can see my thought process and how I arrived at the decision that the GOI should impose a ban on tobacco companies. This is a tough subject but as a former smoker myself, I can honestly say that if a government made that decision I would not be offended. If individuals want to smoke they can, and if they need information to ensure they make informed decisions they can seek it out