If Fred were a Utilitarian
Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism. It is a doctrine where the ends justify the means. This implies that if one really needs to reach a certain goal but the process to attainment of that goal is wrong ethically, morally or otherwise, the individual would still go through with the process so long as their goal it attained at the end. This is a system which values the outcome more than the process. Fred is in a position where he has previously experienced the challenges that come with being unemployed. Moreover, unemployment would mean that his wife would have to labor in two jobs. This would threaten the social, psychological and emotional well-being of his wife and their family at large. He has just taken up employment but discovers that he would be involved in unethical behavior while at this job to get his salary.
If Fred were a utilitarian, he would continue working for Greyarea since he needed the money. Fred would be torn in between continuing to work for Greyarea or quiting his job. Continuing to work for Greyarea would compromise his personal beliefs and ethics (while also contributing to smoking-related ailments), while quitting the job would be risking another long stint without a job. This would compromise his family’s well-being. As a utilitarian, he would opt to remain working for Greyarea since the outcome of this choice would imply that his family remains stable and well taken care of. His wife would get time to take care of their children and play her role as a mother. In addition, he might argue that he would not risk losing his house to foreclosure since he would have already spent a lot of time and money making contributions to the mortgage scheme.
If Fred were a Deontologist (Kant)
Deontology is the doctrine first espoused by Emmanuel Kant which deals with moral and ethical duty and obligations. Deontology values both the ends and the means in ethical questions. This means that in a practical ethical dilemma where one really needs to reach a certain goal but the process to attainment of that goal is wrong ethically, morally or otherwise, the individual takes up their moral or ethical obligation and duty to denounce the process without considering the outcome. Similarly, if the outcome goes against ethical and moral standing while the process is morally and ethically justifiable, then the individual should denounce the process and not participate in it.
In Fred’s case, the process of making cigarettes which have significantly negative impacts on consumers is ethically wrong and goes against his principles. Moreover, Fred has discovered that Greyarea are adding a compound to the cigarettes which makes them more addictive. Fred knows this is bound to contribute to increased smoking and eventually to more smoking-related cancers. Being a deontologist, Fred would quit his job and contemplate on exposing Greyarea for lacing their cigarettes with a substance that causes addiction. This is because as a deontologist, he values the process as well as the outcome. This is because he would believe that the outcome does not justify the means. Fred would arrive at this decision because he would feel obliged and owing a duty to society to discontinue his involvement with a process that is detrimental to a significant proportion of the population. Fred may also report the activities of Greyarea to the authorities out of his moral duty to inform the public of his damaging findings.
