Professional ethics is a set of values and principles that guide the conduct of professionals in relation to what is right and wrong, based on loyalty, accountability, honesty and respect for the law. Thus, celebrities’ actions to promote harmful practices such as tobacco use are certainly inconsistent with professional moral principles, which posit to serve broader social interests
The “smoking zone” has shifted from the industrialized developed countries to the developing countries. While 80 percent of the 1.3 billion tobacco users are in third world countries, India has more than a million tobacco-related deaths, accounting for 9.5 percent of all deaths. According to a 2014 report by the World Health Organization, a frightening health problem caused by tobacco use is weighing heavily on the Indian economy, with about 53 percent of tobacco-related deaths attributed to non-communicable diseases and 80 percent of those due to chronic respiratory diseases, cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Accordingly, it is not surprising that the Indian state is fighting to reduce tobacco consumption by 30 percent by 2025.
At this point, the promotion of tobacco use by movie stars is indeed not only depressing, but also immoral, antisocial, if not downright illegal. In a country like India, people often passionately follow and emulate the stars of the cinema. Such a following is often used by large corporations and corporations to further their business interests. It’s not uncommon for people to imitate the clothes and other styles of the movie stars in their daily lives. Such impersonations reflect the tremendous impact the celebrities have on fans. While these celebrities have every right to endorse a brand, the promotion of tobacco use invites criticism on moral and social grounds, as society demands a minimum level of moral and social responsibility from public figures.
Accordingly, the general actions of the movie stars and their actions in promoting tobacco use warrant a moral scrutiny. These actions to promote something as bad as tobacco, which has a negative impact on human health and societal integrity, can be evaluated on a number of moral parameters. On the one hand, the performance of the action in the area of restricted individual freedom (principle of harm) can be used. According to the utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill, two types of actions are performed by people: Self-Regarding Action (SRA); and Other Measures (ORA). The SRA is the one who influences the agent himself. Further explaining, Mill says that an action ceases to be SRA when it directly affects others. However, the ORA is the one that affects others and therefore brings with it moral criticism.
This distinction essentially serves as a basis for the broader horizon of individual liberty and serves as a reason to delineate individual liberty by the state/country justifying interference in it. State interference with individual liberty is conditioned by the “harm principle,” which states: “The only purpose for which power can lawfully be exercised over a member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, whether physical or moral, is not a sufficient justification.” It implies that one actor’s harmful ORA morally permits others, including the state, to encroach upon individual liberties. Thus, the state has the right to interfere with the freedom of the individual if this is necessary for the good of others/society. However, it is difficult to draw a sharp line between SRA and ORA, leading to claims that the two overlap, and the Tobacco Promotion Act is a good example in this regard.
Although the movie stars have their freedom to choose the roles to be played, the platform and the message they want to convey through the performance cannot be discounted. With the clear knowledge that tobacco causes incurable diseases and immense suffering, the film actors’ action to promote tobacco use surely affects common people in many ways and eventually harms their bodies. Thus, these otherwise actions of the celebrities do not meet the condition preventing the state from intervening, and it is also immoral since it ceases to bring the maximum benefit in the maximum number. While the state is taking major strides in the form of tobacco prevention laws, those laws should include strong action against those who, despite their social position, encourage harmful practices such as tobacco use.
The second moral issue related to tobacco advertising focuses on the action itself. It violates the universal moral principle of humanity, which states: “Act so that you may serve humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, never only treated as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”
In other words, this principle implies that an actor should act in such a way that actions never use human beings as a means to any end. On the contrary, the movie stars use other people, albeit indirectly, for their own personal interests in order to make fortunes, ignoring their moral responsibilities and respect for others and society. Accordingly, these celebrities do not fulfill the humanity principle, since they use others to exploit ordinary people’s passionate emotions, thereby plunging these celebrities into the realm of immorality.
Furthermore, it is fitting to reiterate that the noble professions tend to serve the well-being of fellow human beings and society alike. Professional ethics is a set of values and principles that guide the conduct of professionals in relation to what is right and wrong, based on loyalty, accountability, honesty and respect for the law. Therefore, celebrities’ actions to promote harmful practices such as tobacco use are certainly inconsistent with professional moral principles, as they carry a responsibility to serve larger social interests.
(The author is an Ethics Advisor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru)
Comments are closed.