Thank You for Smoking is a movie depicting the life of Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart), a lobbyiest whose primary role is to defend the tobacco company where he works. The question of whether it is ethical in their work or not is what this paper seeks to answer. For that is vital to have a clear concept of what is ethical. The dictionary of the English Royal Academy defines it as "Part of philosophy dealing with morality and the obligations of man." Traspolando this concept to work we can conclude that they are the moral obligations of the worker. To extend this concept to the teacher telling Fernando Savater illustrates that ethics "is concerned with the administration that everyone does in their life, for his own good, (...). It is fundamentally intimate: the consciousness of everyone (...), the characteristic of moral choice, it always is in our hands, ie depends only on the intent of each.
As I said before the work of Nick Naylor is valid arguments to defend the tobacco companies, that is their obligation, that's their job. If ethics is fundamentally intimate ethical point here is whether what he says really agree with his way of seeing the world, because ethics at the end of the day is on the ideology of each person. For example, to a socialist buy a Hummer and a house in the Country Club, even if the money is good there is unethical because it does not agree with that it promulgates. If beyond it is corrupt and that money illegally obtained, then not only unethical but immoral act. On the contrary, if a capitalist buys a house in the Country Club with money from their labor will not have major consequences, as their philosophy of life consistent with their actions, is Capital!
Any ideas where there is no evidence to prove rationally defining their validity, are and should be subject to public debate for discussion and deepening it. Any idea who is in the field of speculation can be argued. Smoking is not an immoral act, each person decides whether it or not and also if there are advocates of nonsmokers Why should not they be defenders of smokers? Therefore the actions of Nick Naylor are largely ethical.
The only time where a man missing from his work ethic and commits an act of which he is convinced, is not well, therefore against their ideology of life, when bribes to a former actor Marlboro commercials not to give his statement to the media (and obviously the moral burden that is) However we could say that this man claimed and recovered his ethics to quit her job at the end of the film. He had clear that bribing a man is unethical and immoral act, which forced his boss. Decisive is the character of the child, which does not give a bad example and decide to do the right thing and resign. Ends up in a job just advice but phones, much less covered by the media and therefore less problematic. 
The other major character in the film, which triggers all the dramatic conflict is the reporter (Katie Holmes) whose behavior went against journalistic ethics to make two serious mistakes that are clear. The first is not to respect the confidentiality of the source consulted by publishing his article. When you lack this, the biggest loser is the journalist to lose that source for future articles and in addition to possibly losing social status in any other neighboring sources. The second action is not only a breach of ethics but the moral is to get information, not a formal interview, but on data provided off the record (lack of ethics), and also mixed with sex as a tool manipulation (Immoral). However, it is interesting to note that it retains its ethics because she believes in everything he wrote in his article, but did not follow good ethics and their behavior was immoral. A good example of the differences between deontology, Ethics and Moral.
