The success and power experienced by the United States (US) can be inferred as resting upon a relatively free market system, capitalist society and democratic government whose appeal is affirmed by integration of similar systems by previously-socialist countries like China. The success achieved has been engendered through the efforts of individuals, corporations as well as industries largely focused on maximizing profits. However, various issues have arose involving the ethicality inherent in business practices of some corporations especially those in the tobacco industry, whose actions and efforts in attracting more customers is under threat.

This is affirmed by Doward & Bissett (2014) who report that Britain’s major cigarette manufacturers are focusing on fighting against tougher regulation by contracting a successful US lobbyist operating under the Action on Consumer Choice (ACC); which shows how dire the situation is. Many questions remain; are firms in the tobacco industry unfairly treated? And is it ethical? And do they have an obligation to protect consumers? From an ethical point of view, the tobacco industry is not unfairly targeted and their lack of equality with other industries is also not unethical and also has an ethical duty to protect customers even though it is their choice to partake of its products.

The seemingly unfair targeting of the tobacco industry is tied to the resultant negative outcomes of their products which would negate the unfairness to the industry compared to other industries. As indicated by Dorfman et al. (2012), ‘tobacco-related diseases remain a top public health threat’, which includes smokers as well as non-smokers including children, who represent a nation’s future. Relatedly, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2014) indicates that marketing by the tobacco industry is targeting young adults including those at the 12-17 year-age gap, with evidence of increase in adolescent smoking due to aggressive advertising by these companies. From a utilitarian ethical viewpoint, where morally acceptable actions involves balancing between harms and benefits while consequences or outcomes provide justification for a person’s actions, harm especially to young adults identify the tobacco industry as engaging in morally unacceptable behavior. This is because a lot of people die due to the industry’s product while also affecting their general abilities to function considering the impact of smoking-related illnesses such as lung cancer. Despite this, the industry has managed to survive especially in an increasingly regulated environment, which could be explained by its contribution to the economy which, from a capitalistic viewpoint is beneficial to society as it revitalizes the economy.

In a long-term case scenario, the death of people including the young ones and their subsequent decreasing capacities indicates more harm than benefits achieved through a capitalistic drive for profit maximization which would be harmful to society. Additionally, from a Kantian or duty-oriented ethical perspective where morally acceptable actions are defined as those that can be universalized without contradiction and acceptable to people as rational beings, growth of tobacco companies would be detrimental to society. This explains the ever-reducing numbers of adult smokers as reported in the Economist (2014) where ‘American adults who smoke has dropped from 43% to 18%’ and ‘smoking rates among teenagers are at a record low’, which indicates realization of harmful effects of tobacco products. The industry’s firms’ engagement in corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs such as British American Tobacco and Phillip Morris also indicate awareness of dangerous outcomes for its customers as they ‘Help Reduce Youth Smoking’ among other efforts (Chaiton, Ferrence & LeGresley, 2006). The sale of a product which kills its customers, but who also keep coming back for more, as well as the tobacco industry’s efforts through CSR activities, indicates the contradictions that define the industry’s efforts to woo customers (Palazzo & Ritcher, 2005).

From an ethical point of view, it is evident that the tobacco industry is not unfairly targeted and their lack of equality with other industries is also not unethical and that it also has an ethical duty to protect customers even though it is their choice to partake of its products. Through CSR activities, firms in the tobacco industry affirm that customers including children are exposed to great harm and this necessitates the gag placed on individual firms in the industry in relation to marketing. However, considering the benefits and contributions of major companies in industry to society and the fact that demand for tobacco products exist, extreme penalties on tobacco industry firms should be renegotiated.