Should Companies Engage in Drug Testing: A Retrospective Analysis

Drug testing has gradually been becoming more and more of a global issue as the need for competent and specialized employees in businesses grow while ethics seem to decline. However, there are still many in the community who abhor the use of drug testing due to a number of reasons although physical privacy is the most commonly reported reason. Unfortunately, drug testing is here to stay, for the time being, since the use of drugs does not appear to be going anywhere anytime soon. In order to determine whether or not these companies should engage in drug testing, it is necessary to examine it from the point of view of the Utilitarian ethical theory.

The core tenant of the Utilitarian ethical theory is, quite simply, to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number of people. To this end, Utilitarianism stresses the need for utility, and that the only way to determine whether or not a particular action is morally justified or not is to examine its outcome. For this reason, Utilitarianism is sometimes referred to as the "greatest happiness principle" because it is goal-oriented, and focuses entirely on the results of an action. For this reason, Utilitarianism is the best ethical theory to determine whether or not the use of drug testing is ethical.

Drug testing is the act of screening employees for drug use through the use of often-invasive methods such as urine samples. However, these invasive methods, while unpleasant, are necessary in order to achieve optimum results from the drug test. Applying the Utilitarian ethical theory here shows that, while the use of drug testing is unpleasant for the employee at the time it is done, it is a necessary evil, because the awkward and unpleasant feelings the potential employee is experiencing from the drug test do not outweigh the negative consequences the company would suffer through if they happened to hire an employee who takes drugs regularly. For this reason, after applying the Utilitarian ethical theory, it would seem that businesses are indeed justified in their use of drug testing in order to screen employees who do drugs or have an ongoing drug addiction. However, this one application is not enough to establish a definitive yes or no to this question. In order to determine that, it is necessary to delve deeper into the philosophy behind Jeremy Bentham, one of the greatest minds behind Utilitarianism.

In the book that had the original idea behind Utilitarianism, Bentham discusses what he calls the "principle of utility." In the introduction to his book, Bentham states that "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do… By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness."(Bentham, 1). This creates a paradox of sorts because it is in the interest of both the employee and the business to want to be happy. This is where the part about "the greatest number of people" comes into play. An employee only wants his or her own happiness, and this includes being able to do drugs whenever he or she wants while still being able to attain any job they are otherwise qualified for, as well as to avoid the embarrassing process of drug testing itself. However, the business watches out for its own interests, as explained earlier, and these interests supersede the employee's unhappiness with the drug test. Keep in mind that Utilitarianism focuses on the greatest amount of happiness; it does not guarantee happiness for all.

This is perhaps the main criticism of Utilitarianism, that it takes an objective view to something that is itself subjective (that is, thoughts, and feelings, namely, happiness). The Utilitarian theory also breaks down pleasures and pains in a process known as "hedonic calculus." This concept is disliked by many because they think that feelings, like pains and pleasures, cannot be put into a binary form like Bentham is doing. They argue that emotions are far too complicated for such simplistic categorizing. In fact, many argue that this ethical theory is, itself, unethical because it fails to take into account any other, potentially important, alternate factors. For example, if the drug test turned out to be a false positive that leads the employee to be fired, that would make everybody unhappy, and yet the Utilitarian theory will still always condone the use of drug tests. Oftentimes, these alternate factors are due to chance or the like, but nevertheless, things just happen sometimes that cannot be predicted, and the Utilitarian theory simply does not account for that in the larger scheme of things.

However, out of the three theories, it is by far the most effective ethical theory to apply to the issue of drug testing and, while Utilitarianism certainly has its flaws, as explained above, it is far and away the best ethical model to use for an issue like this, because it breaks things down into their most simplistic forms. Using the Utilitarian ethical theory, it is apparent, through the use of logic, that yes, the use of drug testing is justified by businesses because it ensures a greater amount of happiness for a greater number of people than if they did not institute drug testing. Those who oppose drug testing will have to understand this. There is a certain peacefulness to be found in this cold calculation that, ironically, attempts to ensure the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. While Utilitarianism certainly has its flaws, it must be praised for its goal-oriented approach to happiness, and that, at the very worst, it does have plenty of practical uses in the modern world.

Work Cited

Bentham, Jeremy. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon Press, 1879. pg.1