ISSUE CVS has been an established company since 1963, and since their creation they have been forced to make controversial decisions about ethical dilemmas. The face of the company is constantly revolving and they struggle to consistently promote a healthy lifestyle for their customers. In 2014, they decided to stop selling tobacco products, which had previously generated about two billion dollars in revenue for the company. CVS decided to stop selling tobacco products on their own accord not because they were forced into it by legal authorities. This decision was rooted in the company’s core values which are innovation, collaboration, caring, integrity, and accountability. They are the first large chain in the industry to stop selling harmful …show more content…
Milton Friedman would want to look at this dilemma in a unique way. He would agree with the decision of CVS to stop selling cigarettes only if they made the decision in their own self-interest. If CVS stops selling products because they know it could hurt them in the short term but eventually make them more profitable in the long term then he would agree, because they made it a decision that will benefit themselves. If the government prohibited pharmacies to sell tobacco products, then he would not disagree because he believes in a free market and no government interference. Adam smith would agree with the free market and he also believe in consumer capitalism. He believed that capitalism should not only supply the society with basic material needs and wanted luxuries, but also make money from goods and services to offer true fulfillment. One can argue that CVS does offer true fulfillment by stopping the sale of tobacco products. Can someone be truly fulfilled when they are a user or even have an addiction to tobacco products? The other side of the argument is, say Smith doesn’t say that tobacco isn’t holding customers back from true fulfillment. The two billion in revenue goes towards other areas that help benefit society such as employee recognition, ways to lower environmental impact, and even charities and organizations. If they put the revenue of the tobacco into things that help …show more content…
I never really bought into the whole religious concept, but it helped me develop strong moral principles. I am person who believes that he will stick to those morals in tough and difficult decisions. If I were in this dilemma I would take the virtue ethics approach because I would take the virtue ethics because I would trust my character but if someone else was in the same situation, I would suggest the utilitarianism and Adam Smith approach. Even though the virtue ethics and utilitarianism approach have the same outcome (keep selling tobacco), they are different. If someone else had to do decide, I don’t know their character so I do not trust them. A Utilitarianist with Adam Smith’s philosophy of consumer capitalism is the best solution because he/she would want the decision with the most overall good and individuals to reach true fulfillment. CVS should keep selling tobacco and take the revenue then put it into places it will benefit society the most. Tobacco is a harmful drug, but oxycodone can be harmful but they keep selling it. Yes, CVS could have differentiation strategy when they stop selling tobacco but the tobacco industry will only take a small blow and CVS will not create as much good compared to taking the revenues and putting it into great organizations. The revenue from tobacco could be put into places where people can learn more about their emotional education and self-understanding. These are the