I believe these arguments are bad and that you should not take the job. > If you turned down the job, it would be filled by someone else An argument often hea

I believe these arguments are bad and that you should not take the job. > If you turned down the job, it would be filled by someone else An argument often heard with the US in a hegemonial situation and here in this specific scenario it might apply, but here too you would need self-interest for justification. But that is not true in the example. Why not become a drug lord then, wouldn't you be the nicest drug lord and have even more money? > As a conscientious objector You are not a conscientious objector, you are a direct profiteer. > save hundreds of lives from diseases such as malaria A drug lord could save even more people from malaria. Such rationalizations are ultimately self-delusional. There sure are cases that are about choosing the lesser evil, but this scenario does not qualify because you can justify just about anything. And you can never know if your successor would not be even nicer than you are. It comes down to your self-interest at that point and here you take the money and probably wouldn't donate everything. You deserve a part for your work, right? I don't think working in the tobacco industry is something that always deserves condemnation though, just for the sake of the argument.