David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Business Ethics 8 (4):279 - 287 (1989)
Most of the debate about drug testing in the workplace has focused on the right to privacy. Proponents of testing have had to tackle difficult questions concerning the nature, extent, and weight of the privacy rights of employees. This paper examines a different kind of argument — the claim that because corporations are responsible for harms committed by employees while under the influence of drugs, they are entitled to test for drug use. This argument has considerable intuitive appeal, because it seems, at least at first glance, to bypass the issue of privacy rights altogether. The argument turns, not on rights, but on the nature and conditions of responsibility. We may therefore call it an ought implies can argument.In spite of its initial appeal, however, the argument does not succeed in circumventing the claims of privacy rights. Even responsibility for the actions of others does not entitle us to do anything at all to control their behavior; we must look to rights, among other things, to determine what sorts of controls are morally permissible. In addition, the argument rests on unjustified assumptions about the connection between drug testing and the prevention of drug-related harm.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
John Hasnas, Robert Prentice & Alan Strudler (2010). New Directions in Legal Scholarship. Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (3):503-531.
Similar books and articles
A. Scott Carson (1995). Drug Testing and Privacy. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 14 (4):3-22.
Hugh LaFollette (1994). Mandatory Drug Testing. In S. Luper-Foy C. Brown (ed.), Drugs, Morality, and the Law. Garland
Adil E. Shamoo & Jonathan D. Moreno (2004). Ethics of Research Involving Mandatory Drug Testing of High School Athletes in Oregon. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (1):25 – 31.
David L. Wiesenthal & Neil I. Wiener (1996). Privacy and the Human Genome Project. Ethics and Behavior 6 (3):189 – 202.
Anders J. Persson & Sven Ove Hansson (2003). Privacy at Work – Ethical Criteria. Journal of Business Ethics 42 (1):59 - 70.
Hugh LaFollette (1994). Mandatory Drug Testing. In Steven Luper & C. Brown (eds.), Drugs, Morality, and the Law. Garland
Michael Huemer (2004). America's Unjust Drug War. In Bill Masters (ed.), The New Prohibition. Accurate Press
Hugh LaFollette (1994). Mandatory Drug Testing. In S. Luper & C. Brown (eds.), Drugs, Morality, and the Law. Garland
Michael Cranford (1998). Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy: Arguing the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 17 (16):1805-1815.
Nicholas J. Caste (1992). Drug Testing and Productivity. Journal of Business Ethics 11 (4):301 - 306.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #152,084 of 1,938,741 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #290,621 of 1,938,741 )
How can I increase my downloads?