What Happens When Profit Trumps Ethics?
The bigger the gap between the social good of a transaction and the money to be made from it, the harder it becomes to do what’s right for society.
What Happens When Profit Trumps Ethics?
Free markets can’t be trusted to regulate human nature; after all, the market isn’t an independent force with its own moral and ethical code — it is a reflection of our collective behaviour; it is us.
Humans have a built-in tendency to seize opportunities — especially those that lead to profit. This propensity to strike has led to many of society’s most troubling issues.
I still recall the Peter Stuyvesant and Marlboro cigarette ads of the 80s. Peter Stuyvesant projecting an image of sophistication with beautiful and healthy-looking people sailing — and smoking. And then there was the Marlboro man — the pinnacle of masculinity. Make no mistake, these ads were designed to sell and make money — that was the only goal.
None of the coolness of the Marlboro man or the glamour, sophistication, and tanned bodies of the Stuyvesant actors reflected the deeper societal issues at play — lung and other cancer-causing agents being at work. Over 70 carcinogens have been identified in cigarette smoke.
No; smoking was just cool — and profitable for the companies selling cigarettes.
It was not just the individual who developed lung cancer who suffered, but also the rest of society. Closer to home, there’s the family and other loved ones who now have to care for and, in some cases, mourn a relative or friend.
There were non-smokers living with the smoker who were at risk of developing poor health. Non-smokers in public spaces had to breathe in the secondary smoke and deal with the smell. Remember the days when smoking was allowed on aeroplanes?
There was also the burden placed on the entire health system. Smoking’s impact goes well beyond individual health — it also places a significant burden on our healthcare system. The increase in smoking-related conditions like lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and heart disease leads to higher hospital admissions and greater use of medical services, which in turn drives up costs for public programs and insurers.
Because these expenses are largely covered by taxpayer-funded healthcare, resources are often diverted from other services, subtly straining our overall system.
Just as tobacco companies once used powerful marketing to overshadow the long-term harm to public health, we now see a similar pattern unfolding in other industries, where the drive for profit can mask the broader social costs.
Companies typically favour carbon-intensive production methods because they are cost-effective and yield quick profits. However, these activities emit greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, sea-level rise, and extreme weather events. The true cost of these emissions — measured in environmental degradation, health crises, and economic losses — is borne by society, not by the firms reaping the profits.
While climate change may be one of the most visible examples of how profit-driven practices can impact society at large, it is far from the only one. Many sectors, from food production to consumer goods, rely on cost-cutting measures that can have profound public health and environmental consequences.
Food companies use preservatives and additives to cut costs; sometimes, these chemicals are linked to serious health issues; fast-food chains rely on unhealthy ingredients that contribute to chronic illnesses; and industries that neglect pollution controls create air and water contamination that damages public health. These examples underscore that when private profit is prioritised above all, society is left to shoulder the external costs.
Recognizing these recurring patterns — whether in tobacco, energy, or food — helps us understand why government intervention becomes not just beneficial but necessary to protect public well-being. Since there is often a gap between human behaviour and moral considerations, government regulation becomes essential.
Through measures like Pigovian taxes (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, carbon, and plastics taxes), mandatory standards, and incentives for sustainable practices, regulators can help internalise external costs and align private incentives with the broader public interest, ultimately promoting a healthier, more sustainable society.
That said, government intervention isn’t a panacea. Governments worldwide have stumbled in regulating industries, sometimes due to political pressures or corporate lobbying. History shows instances where lenient or inconsistent enforcement allowed harmful products to remain on the market or where subsidies and policies inadvertently favoured profit over public welfare. These missteps naturally prompt questions: How can regulations be enforced fairly and effectively? And who holds the government accountable if they fail to safeguard the public interest?
Recognizing these shortcomings doesn’t diminish the role of public policy — rather, it underscores the need for accountability and transparency to ensure regulations genuinely serve society and don’t become another vehicle for corporate gain.
But the issue of profit versus morality isn’t just about short-term versus long-term thinking — it’s about choosing profit over what’s right. At its core, this isn’t merely an economic problem; it’s an indictment of companies and society regarding ethical and moral standards.
My goal here is not to philosophise about morals and ethics like Benedict Spinoza, but we all have a sense of what is right and what is wrong.
In the cases above, it is not that difficult to discern. If the air quality causes millions to die, we know that it is wrong. If preservatives cause cancer, we know this is wrong. When certain foods cause chronic illnesses, we know this is wrong.
We can’t simply pin the blame solely on corporations or on individuals when profit trumps ethics — both are operating within a larger system that shapes their choices. Often, individual decisions are not entirely voluntary but are constrained by economic realities. For example, many people, especially those in lower-income brackets, typically have limited access to healthier, higher-quality food because these options are pricier or less available in their communities. Free choice isn’t always as free as it appears — economic realities and public policies heavily influence what we can buy, eat, and enjoy.
At the same time, corporations pursue profit within an economic framework that prioritizes cost-cutting and efficiency, often at the expense of public welfare.
Ultimately, both corporate practices and personal choices are intertwined with systemic factors such as income inequality and market structure, suggesting that everyone has a role to play in reforming the system to align private incentives with the broader social good.
Bridging the gap between what’s profitable and what’s right calls for collective responsibility, not isolated blame. Rather than demonising corporations or individuals, we might do better to recognise the complex web of motivations, economic pressures, and societal values that shape our choices.
Perhaps the real question is: how can we shift these forces in a way that encourages both economic vitality and social well-being? Some shifts are already in motion — governments are experimenting with stronger regulations, corporations are facing increasing pressure from ethical investors, and consumers are demanding greater accountability. But these changes are slow and uneven.
The challenge is not just to identify the problem but to shape a future where economic success and social good are not at odds. Whether we achieve this through policy, innovation, or cultural shifts remains open for discussion — but what is clear is that the status quo is unsustainable. The responsibility to rethink this system belongs to all of us.