Thank You for Smoking - Movie Analysis

“Evil Holds a Special Charm”

In the movie Thank you for Smoking, Nick Taylor a lobbyist is facing the dilemma of whether continuing to persuade the general public that smoking is good or quit his job and find alternative way of making a living. There are pressures that are present in Nick Taylor’s situation; economic, social, and political pressure. One of the economic pressures is that Nick Taylor wants to live a luxury life and that he has a son that he needs to support. On the other hand, social pressure exist due to he is a divorced man in which his wife has already a new man. Another social pressure is that he often speaks on general public; television, newspapers and other social media. Moreover, there is a political pressure because the government is showing its moves and arguments about health issues of smoking and putting a skull logo which states that cigarettes are poison. The stakeholders of this case are the people who are directly involved; Senator Finistirre, Heather Holloway, the captain, Joey and the head of the institute of Tobacco studies. Senator Finistirre is the head of the subcommittee and ardently supports the new labeling. Moreover, Heather Holloway is a reporter who was Nick’s girlfriend, until she sold him out to the lobby, so Nick was doubly betrayed. The captain is a rich man that supports the Institute for tobacco studies. Joey is Nick Taylor’s son who is very attached to his father. Lastly, the head of Institute of tobacco studies, he is a greedy man who fired Nick Taylor when the issues about him were out and hired him right away after made a slam in the congress about the new labeling of cigarettes.

The dilemma of Nick Taylor can be solved through three alternatives. First, continue working for the Institute of Tobacco studies as a lobbyist, continue working for Institute of Tobacco studies but not as a lobbyist and lastly, quit being a lobbyist and look for another job that fits his talents. The option of continuing working for the Institute of Tobacco studies as a lobbyist would give Nick Taylor the life that he wanted, his salary would raise and he will continue to speak for tobacco. It is supported by the principle of Utilitarianism, Utilitarianism states that “an action is right if and only if the sum total benefits produced by that act is greater than the sum total benefits produced by any other act the agent could have performed in its place.” However, it is difficult to use when dealing with values that are difficult and perhaps impossible to measure quantitatively. The second alternative which is continue working for Institute of Tobacco studies but not as a lobbyist would give Nick Taylor the chance to fix his image to the general public. However, he is still working for the Institute for Tobacco studies which renders his moral at stake. The second, alternative is supported by the principle of justice and fairness which states that “Justice consists… in treating equals equally and in giving each person his due.” Moreover, it is specifically, distributive justice. Distributive justice involves the fair distribution of benefits and burdens. When issues concerning the common good are at stake, distributive justice comes into play, the principle of justice simply states “Individuals who are similar in all respects relevant to the kind of treatment in question should be given similar benefits and burdens, even if they are dissimilar in other irrelevant respects; and individuals who are dissimilar in a relevant respect ought to be treated dissimilarly, in proportion to their dissimilarity.” Moreover, the third and last alternative which is quit being a lobbyist and look for another job that fits his talents. Nick Taylor has a great talent in public speaking, persuading people and thinking of marketing plans. Through quitting as a lobbyist in the Institute of Tobacco studies, great opportunities would come to him and his figure in the general public will not be at stake since he would not defend that smoking is good. The third and last alternative is supported by the principle of virtue ethics, the virtue of ethics states that “An action is morally right if in carrying out the action the agent exercises, exhibits, or develops a morally virtuous character, and it is morally wrong to the extent that by carrying out the action the agent exercises, exhibits, or develops a morally vicious character.” Virtue ethics then determines the rightness and wrongness of an action “by examining the kind of character the action tends to produce the action.”