In our day to day activities, we face different challenges and situations that demand our attention. In order to handle such challenges in a morally acceptable manner, without intentionally causing harm to all the partners involved, we have to be well informed about what morality expects of us. Fundamentally, almost all decisions raise ethical questions that demand ethical answers. Knowledge of ethics hence comes in handy, enabling us to deal with such challenges accordingly. These two situations are part of the dilemmas we face that deserve moral attention to address them.
Use of drugs at workplaces is not morally acceptable. Being a friend’s liaison, I would consult the boss at the workplace and propose that testing for drug use be undertaken. Legally, the employers have a duty to provide safe working environments for all (National Conference of Legislatures, 2009) and owing to the fact that the business world be at stake with regard to production and insecurity, she would be willing to undertake the procedure. Use of drugs at the work place has various implications.
One of the major one being that it would lead to in appropriate decision making which would cost the company lots of money. Other effects to the individual would include reduced performance at the work place due to sluggishness or absenteeism which greatly lowers production, financial losses as a result of compensations and health complications, increased incidences of violence at the work place and accidents especially if the culprit is operating machines. This poses danger both to the drug user and the other workers.
Ethicists do argue that an action or decision is morally right if it has the greatest good for the greatest majority. This clearly shows that drug use is unethical because at the end of the day, it amounts to pain and suffering. Besides, use of drugs in the country is an illegal affair and ethically, it would be wrong to let other people face the legal consequences and suffer while the same would have been avoided. However, testing of drug use may not be so easy because of the ethical concerns involved. Hence, the boss would in conjunction with all the stakeholders involved, agree on the need to conduct the procedure.
Several consultative and informative campaigns, meetings and workshops organized for the same and above all, assurance that the results would be confidential would to a great extent contribute to a positive perception and ultimate agreement by all stakeholders. Legally, the National Conference of Legislatures (2009) recommends that a drug test be conducted by all the employers before employment. Further, it permits for random testing of the employees for drug use at least monthly or every week. This would make the drug users avoid the work place.
In addition, it stipulates that the results from testing be kept confidential. With this at hand, the boss then has the legal permission to conduct the test to the employees and apparently, the suspect would be apprehended and the required legal procedures undertaken against him or her. The National conference of Legislatures (2009) also gives the employer a legal right to deny the drug using employee all the benefits that come with job termination. Ethics approve of this as it implies justice; any person should be responsible for the consequences of his or her actions.
In addition, in an effort to address the problem at the workplace, the law stipulates that all employers should have a written substance abuse policy. Friends and especially best friends are more often than not basically helpful in almost all aspects of our lives. Somebody can only be a good friend if he or she is genuine and mutually helpful, as well as if the person loves and makes as happy and fulfilled in our lives. Then, it would be the highest level of hypocrisy to let a friend suffer in any way, whether physically or emotionally.
We often find ourselves going an extra mile to stand up for the friendship shared on several occasions. This then would not be an exception. In that position, I would tell my friend about what I overheard and urge her to move on and take up the offer at my work place. Aristotle (1976) argues that friendship does occur between two people who are good in themselves and do well for the sake of their friends. In this case, telling my friend about the incident would be for her own good because she would venture further in to other options as her promotion in that particular company is elusive.
Besides, telling her well in time would psychologically prepare her for what lies ahead and may make her re-evaluate herself and identify the areas that she might not be performing satisfactorily. Then she would be able to improve on the same, all for her own good. Going an extra mile and informing my friend about the present job offer at my work place implies that I truly care about what happens to her, even as her dreams of getting a promotion are shattered.
This option, if better than what she was initially getting, will be beneficial to her as it would mean some better pay and consequent improvement in her lifestyle. Besides, waiting a little longer may make her loose the job offer as the position might be taken up by other applicants. Telling her about this in advance would help her make her application in a timely manner. Friendship also demands that we care for each other. Caring for my friend would mean that I become concerned about what happens to her, including her feelings.
Aristotle (1976) affirms this by arguing that perfect friendship entails deep concern, sympathy and care for each other, being able to put the feelings of our friends before our own. No where else would this be demonstrated if I fail to warn my friend about what awaits her in the near future. The above situations, however challenging can be well addressed, without hurting anybody, and for the good of everybody, courtesy of ethics. Morality, by helping us solve our problems, not only helps us avoid problems with the legal officials, but also helps us to stay in harmony with each other. Word Count 1074