Is Wigand's life ruined?

His life has certainly changed after basically being turned completely upside down, no question, but I myself wouldn't consider it ruined.

It's a tricky question overall because, while it's obvious that what he did (and risked) WAS so very important, one can easily ask "Well what has changed since?" and not really receive a clear answer.

No one can really tell you one way or the other except the man himself but, based on what I've read about him, I'm 'guessing' if he had the chance, he'd do it all over again. So that tells me no, his life is not ruined - just different/changed.

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

In my view, our modern version of capitalism ruined him and it happened (happens) on several levels.

He was an idealist. He wanted to fight the tobacco companies (who embodied the least ethical of capitalist organizations). Their capital was what made them so powerful that nobody would want to fight them. It's likely that lots of more or less moral people knew what was going on was wrong and did nothing to stop it. Eventually the power of the capital becomes that strong.

Unlike those who were just happy to get a paycheck for what was considered a legitimate business (regardless of the direct harm and little to no human value), he objected to what was going on and thought it needed to be stopped. He wanted to expose them. But the media (60 minutes) -- something that is supposed to be a democratic bastion but that is also overrun by capitalism -- were pressured not to run his story. Modern capitalism -- that which lacks the ethics that is supposed to work in concert with capitalism for an economy that is both strong and full of useful products that represent the best society can make -- was again a force against him.

Eventually the information that cigarettes were known to cause cancer and other problems got out, but in the end his life as he knew it was ruined. This was the cost of being an idealist in this world, trying to be ethical and working in the interests of democracy in a society where in the end capitalism often becomes a force that pushes for people to participate in unethical business practices. In this case, it's not just that the practices were bad (covering up harmful information about the product). Literally what we know about tobacco says that this industry is by definition unethical.

And yet tobacco continues to be sold today, just like restaurants continue to promote meals that are clearly over and above normal calorie levels for healthy lifestyles -- all because this is "what people want." Really, it's just "what they don't know they don't want" because people by their nature are sometimes self-destructive. Of course, you can call me a Marxist or whatever name you want, but the reality is that people really do need help on understanding how to make decisions to live healthy lives. Meanwhile, corporations have only their own profits as their interests and our government is pressured to let that happen absent measured and targeted regulatory efforts that might make capitalism more efficient and the market more open to healthy change. A system of capitalism can be very successful if the people within it find a way to regulate it such that change and innovation are allowed to happen, but this cannot happen if large corporations such as tobacco companies, oil companies, media companies, computer companies, etc... are so large that they can stifle the discussion of new ideas and innovations that might actually force changes that would help people.

In the case of big tobacco, if these corporations were not permitted to become so massive, they would not be so powerful as to stifle dissenting views about their business and about the harm of cigarettes both health-wise and socially, not so powerful as to be able to pay for all of that advertising, not so powerful as to pay lobbyists to hammer away at our politicians, and not so powerful as to be able to effectively transform the mentality about tobacco consumption into an argument that says "to each his own." I'm not saying we should shut them down, but they should be regulated to a place where cigarettes/cigars/chewing tobacco are something that can't appear in advertising and their appearance in media in general should be monitored. Only then can people really make decisions for themselves free of the power of these organizations to overwhelm the pro-social messages that are there (but just barely) to tell people the problems of starting and becoming a smoker.

Back to Jeffrey Wigand. This is the machine that "ruined" him. Individuals can affect change sometimes -- to that there is no denying. But what are the costs of affecting change? In his case, the effort involved to make change happen had collateral effects on his family, his career, his own safety. Of course, he was much wealthier as an industry insider than he is as a school teacher -- so again, there is that cost where his ethics cost him real financial stability. And that is the sad story of our society where it pays to be a greedy, amoral capitalist (whereas I believe the right situation could have both healthy capitalism containing products that are either helpful or in some other way intrinsically valuable.

Not even close. IMO - the opposite.

What did he lose? A high salary and large house (that he didn't seem to require or appreciate) and a wife that loved the security and trappings of that income more than she loved him.

He had the character and integrity to challenge an immoral corporate culture, which lead to his 'firing'. But in the end, he found he had even more character and integrity.

I suppose if one measures life by money and material stuff ONLY, he lost out a little. He only became average in that respect.

But if you include karma, character, being able to look at yourself with self-respect and decency....his life would have been ruined had he NOT done what he did.

Also, he didn't stop with 'Teacher of the Year'. He reportedly now travels and lectures worldwide to medical, law and policy students and consults for governments on tobacco policies. I hope he made some coin on the movie and on his lectures/consulting. And, he's remarried to a philosopher, author, lawyer and professor. That woman would seem to suit him better than his first wife.

No, his life wan't ruined, it was saved.

[deleted]

"If his is the case, then who ruined it/at what point was it ruined? "

It was obviously the Tobacco company that tried to ruin his life, starting the moment they fired him for his ethical principles and they ramped it up with the psychological and financial abuse of him and his family (e.g. death threats?) and the smear campaign and attempted character assassination that the WSJ disputed.

I like to think that his words are true. "Yeah it was worth it." If he hadn't blown the whistle he might of had a nice house and whatnot but he would have been haunted by the secrets he was being forced to withhold forever.


Babak

[deleted]

His life was not ruined, it was saved (in a purely non-religious sense). That is, he was just an impoverished amoral/immoral shell consisting of thinking material goods equate with happiness or contentment/satisfaction in and of life (which obviously they never do or can). The only redeeming quality he had before was that he cared for his family, and even that is cheap. Only inhumane monsters don't care about their families' welfare, it's hardly the pinnacle of morality to care for ones' own family. But for someone to be truly moral and live an authentic human life, they must expand their moral circle to include concern for humanity in general, for the welfare of those they will never meet and act in accordance with this overall sympathy for humankind.

So this level he finally reached when he decided to act in accordance with virtue out of concern for the moral interests of others besides his own family. This is its own reward of course (c.f. Aristotle for one) and he was lucky to have had the opportunity to do so much good (I wish I would get such a chance!). His life was greatly enhanced, given true meaning, dignity, and moral worth by these circumstances and his noble response to them. His losses are paltry (and his wife would have left him anyway and/or didn't truly love/respect him anyway in which case he would have not been any better off if she didn't leave, kids aside) compared to his gain of morally justified life of worth and dignity instead of an impoverished existence consisting of mostly hollow pursuits amounting to very little.

His life was destined to become ruined ever since he sold his soul to the devil. Literally 'sold', because the devil paid him very well for his complacence and silence about this devil's wilfully addicting and poisoning the American people. In a way, this is a classic Faustian movie.

It was just when Wigand realized how far he had to extend his complacence, that he realized his life would get ruined either way: or by keeping silent and become accomplice to mass-murder, or by speaking out and losing the life he was leading.

Wigand did not stand up to the devil. Remember Wigand got fired. He did not want or chose to leave the job. It was after being fired when Wigand was taken (by Bergman) to the dilemma of speaking out or not. It was obviously hard to convince him that speaking out was the best thing to do.

Wigand did not expect to lose more than his financial security (he was forced to lose that by being sacked, and took up another job to take care of his family). Besides, he was prepared to take on the risk of his company coming after him. That is the the heroic deed he ought to be commended for.

What Wigand apparently did not expect was his wife leaving him, and thus losing his family life. Had he known this beforehand, I really doubt if he would have made the same choice to speak out. And I woulnd't blame him for not making that choice.

There is a lot of drama in this story. A lot.