Description
This week, you will consider how utilitarianism applies to a controversy, dilemma, event, or scenario selected by your instructor. It is a chance for you to discuss together the ethical issues and questions that it raises, your own response to those, and whether that aligns with or does not align with a utilitarian approach. The aim is not to simply assert your own view or to denigrate other views, but to identify, evaluate, and discuss the moral reasoning involved in addressing the chosen issue.
Your posts should remain focused on the ethical considerations, and at some point in your contribution you must specifically address the way a utilitarian would approach this issue by explaining and evaluating that approach.
If you have a position, you should strive to provide reasons in defense of that position.
When responding to peers, you should strive to first understand the reasons they are offering before challenging or critiquing those reasons. One good way of doing this is by summarizing their argument before offering a critique or evaluation.
Your posts should add up to at least 400 words.
—————————————————————–
Questions to Consider: Random Drug Testing and Utilitarianism
One of the most interesting arguments Ive heard from past students condoning random drug testing of the American population is Utilitarian in nature. Utilitarianism, as you all know, promotes that action which has the greatest positive effect on the greatest portion of the population. Random drug testing could have a positive effect on the community because it could identify potential drug abusers, which may be harmful to others. This could also have a positive effect on the users being identified if part of the punishment involved coerced drug treatment/rehab. Also, random drug testing would deter citizens from doing drugs in the first place, in fear of being selected for the testing. A Utilitarian might also consider the negative impact that random drug testing would have on the population. First it would cost the government money to perform the random drug testing and it would cost even more money if rehabilitation were given to everyone who tested positive. All of this money would have to be added into the budget and would likely incur higher taxation, so those who were not using drugs or being caught would be the ones who suffer. In the end the negatives and positives must be weighed against each other to make a final educated decision. What do you all think of this argument?
