2. Subsequent to the events dramatized in
this movie, the tobacco industry in
1998 settled the lawsuits filed against it
by Mississippi and 49 other states for
$246 billion…
14. The Public
Duty to family
Duty to public
Fires him
Encourages him
to tell his story
15. The Public
Duty to family
Duty to public
Fires him
Breach of
Brea
Confidentiality
Encourages him
to tell his story
16. The Public
Duty to family
Duty to public
Threatens family
Fires him
Breach of
Brea
Confidentiality
Might sue CBS if
Encourages him
they air the show
to tell his story
17. The Public
Duty to family
Duty to public
Threatens family
Fires him
Breach of
Brea
Confidentiality
Might sue CBS if
Encourages him
they air the show
to tell his story
Disagreements over
whether to edit the show
18. Discussion of Issues
• Should Wigand disclose his information?
• Is it unethical to encourage another person
to break his promise for a greater social
good?
• Should 60 Minutes have succumbed to
corporate interests and aired the edited
version?
21. Should Wigand disclose
his information?
• Wigand had tried to negotiate with Brown
and Williamson’s CEO, and he was fired.
• The CEO had also perjured himself in
court to protect Brown and Williamson.
• Hence, clearly negotiation is not an option.
23. Wigand’s Utilitarian
Considerations
Choices Total Pleasure less Total Pain equals Total Utility
Great benefits to the Wigand and his family lose High utility
public all benefits from the
confidentiality agreement Possible benefits to public
Satisfies Wigand’s desire to far outweigh the costs
hurt Brown & Williamson Wigand will face a lawsuit
To disclose
Death threats
Damage to the tobacco
industry and its employees
Wigand and his family keep Wigand will always feel Low utility
all benefits from the guilty
confidentiality agreement Wigand knows that the
The public will be hurt as public is exposed to a lot
The tobacco industry and the tobacco companies more harm
To not disclose its employees are protected continue to act with impunity
24. Wigand’s Utilitarian
Considerations
Choices Total Pleasure less Total Pain equals Total Utility
Great benefits to the Wigand and his family lose High utility
public all benefits from the
confidentiality agreement Possible benefits to public
Satisfies Wigand’s desire to far outweigh the costs
hurt Brown & Williamson Wigand will face a lawsuit
To disclose
Death threats
Damage to the tobacco
industry and its employees
Wigand and his family keep Wigand will always feel Low utility
all benefits from the guilty
confidentiality agreement Wigand knows that the
The public will be hurt as public is exposed to a lot
The tobacco industry and the tobacco companies more harm
To not disclose its employees are protected continue to act with impunity
27. A Kantian Perspective
• Moral duty
• Intention matters
• If acting based on personal advantages or self interest,
then he is not acting from duty.
• What was Wigand’s intention in disclosing the
information?
• Anger at company acting with impunity?
• Good of humanity?
• Consideration: Would Wigand have disclosed
information if he were not fired?
28. A Kantian Perspective
• Principle of Universality
• Maxim: I should not breach a contract even if I
knew it forces me to uphold false statements.
• Maxim: I should breach a contract if I knew it
forces me to uphold false statements.
• Does this contradict with the Universal Law to
keep your promises?
• Yes
29. A Kantian Perspective
• “Truthfulness in statements that one cannot
avoid is a human being’s duty to everyone,
however great the disadvantage to him or
to another that may result from it … all
rights which are based on contracts
come to nothing and lose their
force; and this is a wrong inflicted upon
humanity generally”
30. Our Take on Kant
• Kant would suggest that Wigand does not
disclose the information.
• Moral Duty : Must act from a duty to
protect public health – debatable in
Wigand’s case
• Principle of Universality : Uphold the
integrity of the contract = Keeping
Promises
31. Should Wigand disclose
his information?
• Utilitarian perspective
Disclose
• Kantian perspective
Don’t disclose
32. Conclusion
• Morally Permissible
• Should cause serious harm to employees or
public
• Should be reported to an immediate superior
• Should exhaust all internal procedures
• Morally Obligatory
• Must have documentary evidence
• Must be reasonably sure that it will succeed
33. Is it unethical to encourage another
person to break his promise for a
greater social good?
34. Is it unethical to encourage another
person to break his promise for a
greater social good?
36. Lowell’s Utilitarian
Considerations
Choices Total Pleasure less Total Pain equals Total Utility
Possible benefits to the Wigand and his family Low to medium
public lose all benefits from the utility
confidentiality agreement
Uphold the integrity of Possible benefits to
To encourage “60 Minutes” and CBS Possible lawsuit against public are not certain
News CBS
But costs are more
Damage to the tobacco evident
industry and its employees
Wigand and his family “60 Minutes” and CBS Medium to high
keep all benefits from the News lose one episode utility
confidentiality agreement
The public might not Lowell knows the full
To not encourage The tobacco industry find out the truth extent of the pleasure, but
and its employees are not the pain
protected
37. Lowell’s Utilitarian
Considerations
Choices Total Pleasure less Total Pain equals Total Utility
Possible benefits to the Wigand and his family Low to medium
public lose all benefits from the utility
confidentiality agreement
Uphold the integrity of Possible benefits to
To encourage “60 Minutes” and CBS Possible lawsuit against public are not certain
News CBS
But costs are more
Damage to the tobacco evident
industry and its employees
Wigand and his family “60 Minutes” and CBS Medium to high
keep all benefits from the News lose one episode utility
confidentiality agreement
The public might not Lowell knows the full
To not encourage The tobacco industry find out the truth extent of the pleasure, but
and its employees are not the pain
protected
38. A Kantian Perspective
• One must act from a moral duty
• Motives?
• Principle of humanity
• Treating people not as a means but as an
end
39. A Kantian Perspective
• Principle of Universality
• Maxim: One ought not to encourage
another person to break his promise even
if there is a greater social good.
• Maxim: One ought to encourage another
person to break his promise if there is a
greater social good.
40. Rawlsian Justice as
Fairness
• One: Equal right to the most extensive
system of basic liberties compatible with a
similar system of liberty for all
Company’s right to privacy
vs
Right of society to know the truth
41. Rawlsian Justice as
Fairness
• Two: Social and economic inequalities:
• Greatest benefit to the least advantaged
• Attached to offices and positions open to
all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity
Will it make life better off for the people
who are now worst off?
42. Is it unethical to encourage another
person to break his promise for a
greater social good?
• Utilitarian perspective
Unethical
• Kantian perspective
Unethical
• Rawlsian perspective
Ethical
43. The Public
Duty to family
Duty to public
Threatens family
Fires him
Breach of
Brea
Confidentiality
Might sue CBS if
Encourages him
they air the show
to tell his story
Disagreements over
whether to edit the show
44. Recap
2nd Issue: Is it unethical to encourage
1st Issue: Should Wigand Disclose the
another person to break his promise
information?
even if it is for a greater social good?
Not encourage
Disclose
- Lowell knows the full
Utilitarian -Possible benefits to public far outweigh
extent of the pleasure, but
the costs
not the pain
Not encourage
Don’t Disclose
- Breaking a promise is wrong therefore
Kantian - Violates the universal law to keep
encouraging another person to do so is
promises
also wrong
Encourage
Rawlsian
- Right to know the truth
Disclose
Our Stand Not Encourage
- Morally Permissible to do so
45. Recap
2nd Issue: Is it unethical to encourage
1st Issue: Should Wigand Disclose the
another person to break his promise
information?
even if it is for a greater social good?
Not encourage
Disclose
- Lowell knows the full
Utilitarian -Possible benefits to public far outweigh
extent of the pleasure, but
the costs
not the pain
Not encourage
Don’t Disclose
- Breaking a promise is wrong therefore
Kantian - Violates the universal law to keep
encouraging another person to do so is
promises
also wrong
Encourage
Rawlsian
- Right to know the truth
Disclose
Our Stand Not Encourage
- Morally Permissible to do so
46. Recap
2nd Issue: Is it unethical to encourage
1st Issue: Should Wigand Disclose the
another person to break his promise
information?
even if it is for a greater social good?
Not encourage
Disclose
- Lowell knows the full
Utilitarian -Possible benefits to public far outweigh
extent of the pleasure, but
the costs
not the pain
Not encourage
Don’t Disclose
- Breaking a promise is wrong therefore
Kantian - Violates the universal law to keep
encouraging another person to do so is
promises
also wrong
Encourage
Rawlsian
- Right to know the truth
Disclose
Our Stand Not Encourage
- Morally Permissible to do so
47. Recap
2nd Issue: Is it unethical to encourage
1st Issue: Should Wigand Disclose the
another person to break his promise
information?
even if it is for a greater social good?
Not encourage
Disclose
- Lowell knows the full
Utilitarian -Possible benefits to public far outweigh
extent of the pleasure, but
the costs
not the pain
Not encourage
Don’t Disclose
- Breaking a promise is wrong therefore
Kantian - Violates the universal law to keep
encouraging another person to do so is
promises
also wrong
Encourage
Rawlsian
- Right to know the truth
Disclose
Our Stand Not Encourage
- Morally Permissible to do so
48. Recap
2nd Issue: Is it unethical to encourage
1st Issue: Should Wigand Disclose the
another person to break his promise
information?
even if it is for a greater social good?
Not encourage
Disclose
- Lowell knows the full
Utilitarian -Possible benefits to public far outweigh
extent of the pleasure, but
the costs
not the pain
Not encourage
Don’t Disclose
- Breaking a promise is wrong therefore
Kantian - Violates the universal law to keep
encouraging another person to do so is
promises
also wrong
Encourage
Rawlsian
- Right to know the truth
Disclose
Our Stand Not Encourage
- Morally Permissible to do so
49. Should 60 minutes have succumbed
to corporate interests and aired the
edited version?
50. Should 60 minutes have succumbed
to corporate interests and aired the
edited version?
52. Utilitarian Cost-Benefit
Analysis
Choices Total Pleasure less Total Pain equals Total Utility
Public welfare as truth is Lose Job(s) Medium to High
told Lose 5.3 million Utility
Maintain integrity Potential lawsuit Lots of pain by them but
Don’t Agree Maintain professionalism Potential sale to public benefits greatly from
Westinghouse ruined information
Keep Job(s) Guilt Low Utility
Gain 5.3 million Damaging CBS News Lots of pain by general
Avoid lawsuit reputation public as a whole
Agree Sale to Westinghouse Lose credibility
Value of job increase Public continues to be
oblivious to information
Maintain Integrity Lose Job(s) High Utility
Maintain Professionalism Lose 5.3 million Integrity and
Increase options available professionalism is maintained
Negotiate and chance of having more
options
53. Utilitarian Cost-Benefit
Analysis
Choices Total Pleasure less Total Pain equals Total Utility
Public welfare as truth is Lose Job(s) Medium to High
told Lose 5.3 million Utility
Maintain integrity Potential lawsuit Lots of pain by them but
Don’t Agree Maintain professionalism Potential sale to public benefits greatly from
Westinghouse ruined information
Keep Job(s) Guilt Low Utility
Gain 5.3 million Damaging CBS News Lots of pain by general
Avoid lawsuit reputation public as a whole
Agree Sale to Westinghouse Lose credibility
Value of job increase Public continues to be
oblivious to information
Maintain Integrity Lose Job(s) High Utility
Maintain Professionalism Lose 5.3 million Integrity and
Increase options available professionalism is maintained
Negotiate and chance of having more
options
54. Utilitarian Cost-Benefit
Analysis
Choices Total Pleasure less Total Pain equals Total Utility
Public welfare as truth is Lose Job(s) Medium to High
told Lose 5.3 million Utility
Maintain integrity Potential lawsuit Lots of pain by them but
Don’t Agree Maintain professionalism Potential sale to public benefits greatly from
Westinghouse ruined information
Keep Job(s) Guilt Low Utility
Gain 5.3 million Damaging CBS News Lots of pain by general
Avoid lawsuit reputation public as a whole
Agree Sale to Westinghouse Lose credibility
Value of job increase Public continues to be
oblivious to information
Maintain Integrity Lose Job(s) High Utility
Maintain Professionalism Lose 5.3 million Integrity and
Increase options available professionalism is maintained
Negotiate and chance of having more
options
55. A Kantian Perspective
• Moral Duty
• Intent of airing the edited version of 60 Minutes
• Did 60 Minutes air the edited version to deviate from telling
the truth?
• The Greater the truth Higher damages to B&W
• Consideration: Would 60 Minutes have aired the edited
version…
• If there had been no potential sale to Westinghouse?
• If there were no payments to be made to the General
counsel and President of CBS News once the sale was
completed?
56. A Kantian Perspective
• Principle of Universality
• Maxim: Lying, or deception of any kind, would
be forbidden under any interpretation and in
any circumstance.
• Is it an Universal law to tell the truth?
• Yes
• If so, there is only one such duty, that duty
applies.
57. Our Take on Kant
• Kant would suggest that CBS airs the full
version of 60 Minutes
• Moral Duty: Must act from a duty to
reveal the whole truth and nothing but
the truth
• Principle of Universality : Uphold the law
of being truthful
58. Should 60 minutes have succumbed
to corporate interests and aired the
edited version?
• Utilitarian perspective
Negotiate
• Kantian perspective
Tell the truth
59. Food for Thought
• If you were the General Counsel
or the President of CBS News,
would you have been swayed by
$3.9 million or $1.4 million
respectively?
• What is the value or worth of
your ethics?
• Is there a price that can match
that value?
• Will you hold true in the future?
• Is it moral for companies to
produce and sell what is harmful?
