Not saying it as we speak...

My unsaid thoughts.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Smoke vs. Fire

This was an interesting chapter.

I would like to start with this question: Does the idea of communitarianism suggest that we provide the greatest good to the greatest number without doing any harm to any other parties/individuals that may be affected by the actions taken???

If so, then I would like to definitely agree with the communitarian approach to this situation. In this chapter a PR agency had an ethical dilemma with whether or not they should take on a controversial tobacco company. In the end the agency chose to deny the tobacco company. As I see it the agency provided the greatest good to the greatest number (the consumers) by not spinning the truth about tobacco and its relation to illnesses and death. By not representing this company, the agency doesn't contribute to the contamination of its community and possibly helps provide a reality check to the tobacco industry and its affect on the community.

On the other hand one might argue that by not taking on this company the agency is harmed by the lack of revenue it will receive from this client. However, it's not like the agency sought out and pursued this company. They did not lose any effort nor man hours by not taking this client, therefore if the tobacco company would have never given them a call, there would be no harm, no foul, and in the end everyone is happy except for the tobacco company.

The tobacco company will either have to continue their search by looking for another agency, or produce an internal public relations department. The only problem I'm faced with is: Is the Tobacco company a part of the community? Should we approach them communitarianistically ( I'm sure it's not a word) even though they aren't concerned with the well being of the community?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home