99,000 Essays & Term Papers: Where You Buy Essays and Papers Online
Direct Essays, Where You Can Buy Essays and Papers Online

Instant Access to Buy Essays and Papers Online!
Acceptable Use Policy
Customer Service
Site Search


Login to View Essays and Papers Online

Join Now - Instant Access to Essays and Research Papers!

  Essay and Research Paper Topics
Acceptance Essays
Arts Essays
Custom Essays
English Literature Essays
Foreign
History Essays
Miscellaneous Research Papers and Essays
Movie Essays and Papers
Music Term Papers
Novels
People and Biography Research Papers
Politics Research Papers
Religion Research Papers
Science Essay Topics
Sports Research Papers
Technology Research Papers
 
  FAQ
Technical Support
Site Map
Direct Essays
 

 



Welcome to Direct Essays

This is a short summary of this paper!

Already a member? Go here to log in and view the entire paper!


Join Now!
by: Credit Card
Join Now!
by: Online Check
Join Now!
by: Phone 1-900
Special! View this paper for FREE!
  

Drug Testing 2

Drug Testing and Corporate Responsibility: The "Ought Implies Can" Argument Drug testing has become a hot topic under the microscope recently. The problem is the question whether or not it is morally wrong to test employees for illegal drug use. In order to justify drug testing in the work place one must look to rights, among other things, to determine what sorts of controls are morally permissible. In order to really determine whether or not drug testing is needed one must evaluate the connection between drug testing and the prevention of drug related harm. One theory that that many people use to justify the morality of Drug testing in the work place is a theory that is called "Ought Implies Can". Showing that a person was incapable of doing something otherwise blocks the normal moves of praise or blame and therefore absolves the agent of responsibility for a given act. Basically, we believe that persons can not be obligated to do things that they are not capable of doing. If they fail to do those things then they can not be held accountable. To imply the argument to drug testing is not as broad as the previous example. If corporations are responsible for harms caused by employees under the influence of drugs, they must have the


ability to prevent these harms. They must therefore, have the ability to test for drug use. This argument is vague to say the least. In the argument there are four distinct senses of "Responsible" that appear with some regularity in the argument. They are being legally liable, culpable or guilty, answerable or accountable, or bound by an obligation. The first argument is legal liability. If the employee causes harm to a third party while preforming on behalf of the company, the company has to compensate the third party. This is because the firm was acting through the employee thus, the company is held accountable. This is often called Respondeat superior. This doctrine is grounded not in fault, but in concerns of public policy and utility. Because it does not imply fault, legal liability can not be used successfully as an "Ought Implies Can" argument. Another words, holding corporations legally liable for harms committed by intoxicated employees while at the same time forbidding drug testing is not inconsistent. It can be viewed as another instance of liability without fault. We must be able to attribute more than legal liability to corporations if the "Ought Implies Can" principle is to be applied. Corporations must be held accountable in one of the other three arguments in order for the argument to work. The culpable or guilty argument takes a different approach. This argument states that an agent, in this case the corporation, should be held morally responsible if the act can be imputed to the corporation. This requi

Some common words found in the essay are:
Ought Implies, Argument Drug, Implies Corporations, drug testing, ought implies, held accountable, corporations held, held responsible, employees influence drugs, ought implies theory, legal liability, prevent harm, implies theory, causes harm, obligation prevent, corporations held responsible, justify drug testing, obligation prevent harm,
Approximate Word count = 1030
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)


  

More Essays on Drug Testing 2

Drug Testing 2572 words
drug testing 2604 words
drug testing in the workplace 2610 words
Drug Testing: A Must for Schoo943 words
Drug Testing764 words

Look at even more essays on Drug Testing 2
More Politics Essays

Professional Papers:
MANDATORY DRUG TESTING ampamp EMPLOYMENT1680 words
Drug Testing in Industrial Environments2249 words
DrugTesting in the Workplace1504 words
COMPULSORY DRUG ABUSE TESTING EMPLOYERS3825 words
High School Drug Testing1411 words
Drug Courts1187 words
Special! View this paper for FREE!
Click here to JoinNow!
by: Credit Card
Click here to Join Now!
by: Online Check
Click here to Join Now!
by: Phone 1-900

 

All papers and essays are for research and reference purposes only!
Copyright 2002-2009 Direct Essays , LLC. All Rights Reserved. DMCA
Webmasters make $$$$
Saved Papers