Rights and obligations in legal and social contexts

Rights and Obligations

'Drug use is information that is rightfully private and only in exceptional cases can an employer claim a right to know about such use." I wholly oppose this statement based on moral, as well as practical grounds. This brief considers the moral philosophy of utilitarianism, as well as the implications from which failure to drug test bring to a workplace.

The moral philosophy known as Utilitarianism was "originally proposed in the 19th Century by Jeremy Bentham," Stuart Mill and others (Wikipedia, 2005, ¶1). The idea of this theory is one that suggests "the greatest good for the greatest number." My beliefs with regard to the first sentence are aligned with Utilitarian principle for two main reasons. The first are the figures that suggest that "drug abuse has been correlated with a decline in corporate profitability and an increase in the occurrence of work-related incidents," as it is "estimated that costs to employers of employee drug abuse can run as high as $60 billion per year" (Cranford, 1998, ¶2). Should the rest of the company's efforts at day-to-day profitability for their employer be sidelined for those who want to abuse drugs? No. Secondly, research scholar George Brenkert found in his study of social and moral character that in fact:

A person must be able not simply to perform a certain activity, or provide a service, but he must also be able to do it in an acceptable manner -- i.e., in a manner which is approximately as efficient as others, in an honest manner, and in a manner compatible with others who seek to provide the services for which they were hired (Cranford, 1998, ¶10).

If we take Brenkert's findings for all they're worth, if all employees are to be held to the same standard, which is to perform job specifications "in an acceptable manner," then, shouldn't an employer be entitled to drug use information as a reason for why job performance may not be up to par with regard to certain employees?