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
requirement could be satisfied if it could be shown that the firm intended the
resulting harms, ordered their employees to work under the influence of drugs,
or ignored the fact that there were employees that were working under the
influence of drugs.However, this argument tends to be a little drastic and
really can not apply to make the Ought Implies Can theory work either. Clearly
in most cases drug use would not simply be ignored. In fact, drug use is quite
likely to be prohibited by company policy. Therefore this argument does not
justify drug testing. In this third argument corporations could actually be held
accountable for the harmful acts of there employees. Through a series of
agreements, the corporation delegates its employees to act on its behalf. For
these reasons it could be argued that corporations could be held responsible for
their employees negligence. If this is the case then corporations should have
the right to test their employees for drugs.This last argument which is called
bound by an obligation supports drug testing as well under the Ought Implies Can
theory. If corporations have an obligation to prevent danger to all of its
employees and consumers then they should be able to do what ever is needed to
prevent drugs and overall prevent danger. Another words, if corporations have
obligations they must be capable of carrying them out, on the principle of Ought
Implies Can.
