Riley Cavanaugh

Case Study Analysis Paper

Ford Non-Smoking Policy
Ford implemented a smoking policy that restricts their employees from smoking, and also
people who are wish to work there must give up smoking, as well. Information about this moral
dilemma is that they can require their employees and other applicants to take a test that checks if
they have nicotine in this system. This could cause the tests to be unreliable, since people can
still test positive in this test if they are using the patch or perhaps chewing tobacco. The relevant
moral standards that apply this case are Utilitarianism, Rights Theory, Justice Theory, Care
Theory, and Catholic Social Teaching. In this case study analysis paper, I shall argue that Fords
non-smoking policy is morally unacceptable.
According to Utilitarianism, the relevant facts that support my moral judgement, that the
non-smoking policy that Ford established is morally unacceptable, are as follows: it hurts the
companys employees moral, potential new employees desire to work for the company, and it
could lead to undesirable future consequences. It hurts the companys employees morale
because they may not wish to work for a business that has such a strong interest into their private
lives, especially if them smoking does not affect their work performance in any significant way.
The employees could feel that their privacy is being invaded by the company. Some of the
workers may have felt that the company is too invested in their own privacy, thus it would
decrease their desire to work for the company that implemented this policy. Based on
Utilitarianism, this policy could harm the company and its employees more than it would benefit
the company overall.

The current employees may feel that this policy invades their privacy on something that
would not affect their work performance in any significant way; furthermore, this policy could
act as a deterrent for future applicants who think, I dont smoke, but I could get fired for the
slightest trace of nicotine I may have. This company should not have a say in what I do in my
private life. They would not wish to apply to a company that has this policy, so the company
will have a difficult time finding applicants that suit their positions with the reduced number of
people applying to work there.
This policy could cause a reduction in the number of applicants for the future of the
company; additionally, the future consequences that this policy could create would cost more
than it would help. With anyone being fired if smoking or traces of nicotine in them is discovered
in the tests and with smoking being considered unhealthy, what is to stop the company from
instituting more policies the restricts people from eating junk food or drinking alcohol? Those
too are considered to be unhealthy, so since smoking is already being banned, it could lead to
these other unhealthy things to be banned. Even more people would be upset and against this, so
it would hurt the company even more. The future costs that this policy presents would outweigh
the benefits of it.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that supports the opposite of my moral judgement
are as follows: smoking is an unhealthy habit, so it promotes a healthier life for all the employees
and could help them in the future, the increase in health care costs from smoking will be reduced
or extinguished, and finally, if smoking influences or hurts the employees work performance in
a significant way then this policy would get rid of the harm the smoking causes to it. First,
smoking is an unhealthy habit, so making employees stop smoking will help them become much
healthier. They may not like it, but they would have to give up smoking which will benefit them

in the long run. They could be caused serious harm or diseases from smoking that would cause
them to miss work, so that would make the company want to support this policy. So, the cost of
giving up smoking may be less than the benefit of the healthier lives that the employees would
live.
Making the employees give up smoking could help them lead healthier lives; likewise,
since they will be healthier in the future, that will also reduce the health care costs for everyone
in the company. For example, in the article, If You Light Up on Sunday, Dont Come in on
Monday it states that health care costs 15 to 20% of health care costs stem from, unhealthy
conditions. Everyone in the company would be paying less than health care, so the cost of
giving up smoking will be less than the big benefit gained in the employees wallets. Smoking
can also cause a distraction or harm towards an employees work performance. For example,
some companies have smoking breaks for employees, so instead of taking those breaks for a
smoke, they could continue working. Also, if their health deteriorates because of their smoking
habit, then that will also harm their work performance.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgement
outweighs the opposition: the future consequences and deterrent acts this policy presents
outweighs the costs. From the Utilitarianism view, the future consequences that more unhealthy
activities could be banned could say against a line from the opposition concerning the health care
costs. The health care costs were from unhealthy conditions not smoking specifically. Many
people will be angry if other unhealthy activities were banned, so it would not be worth the cost
for the company. The company will also have difficulty inspiring their own employees or hiring
new ones. People may not want to work for a company that is very intrusive in their personal

life, especially if it is not affecting their work performance. Based on Utilitarianism, the costs of
this policy would outweigh the benefits.
According to the Rights Theory, the relevant facts that support my moral judgement are
as follows: the policy violates the right to liberty and right to adequate working conditions. The
right to liberty is violated because the policy restricts the employees freedom to smoke, or do
something they want to do outside of their work hours. Instead, the policy will not tolerate
smoking by any of their employees taking away their freedom to do so if they choose to work at
the company. The next right that is violated is the right to adequate working conditions. The
employees privacy is being invaded because the company can test if they have smoked recently.
This could be the social privacy of an employee that the company is violating and can cause
harm to the employee because their social privacy is being invaded. This would violate the right
to adequate working conditions.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the other side of my moral just are as
follows: right to adequate working conditions and right to sufficient health care. The right to
adequate working conditions, this time, are for those employees who do not like being subjected
to secondhand smoke. This would be the case if the employees who smoked, did so many times
in the day. That would violate the right to adequate working conditions for those who do not
want to experience that. The next right is the right to sufficient health care. With the cost of
health care increasing because of the unhealthy conditions people are exhibiting, this makes it
difficult for people to afford the health care. Eliminating smoking in the company will reduce the
cost and allow everyone to more likely afford health care.

In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgement
outweighs the opposite conclusion: Rights theory has a stronger case for my moral judgement
than the opposing side. With the right to adequate working conditions, it applies to both sides;
however, it applies more strongly to my moral judgement. For the opposing side the right to
adequate working conditions applies most directly to the harm of secondhand smoke; however,
what if the employee who wants to smoke only smokes outside of work? It would not harm the
other employees or the company at all, especially if their work performance is still good. For my
moral judgement, the right to adequate working conditions is more solid because the policy
could violate the social privacy of the employee. Additionally, for my moral judgements other
right that applies is the right to liberty. This policy restricts the employees freedom to do what
they want as long as it does not affect their work performance. On the opposing side, the right to
sufficient health care is not that strong. The costs may go down for the employees to pay for the
health care, but it is never being fully restricted from them. It can make it more affordable, but
health care is still provided and does not violate that right very accurately. Based on the Rights
Theory, it supports my moral judgement better than the opposition.
According to Justice Theory, the relevant facts that support my moral judgement are as
follows: those who test positive for nicotine are labeled as having smoke, but they may not have
smoked at all, maybe using a nicotine patch or chewing tobacco. They are being treated as
having smoked when they may not have. So, dissimilar people in relevant respects are being
treating similarly. In this case, the policy is supposed to fire people who smoked, but it never said
anything about it firing those who are trying to quit with the patch or using chewing tobacco.
They are treating those who are using the patch or chewing tobacco as if they have smoked,
because they are testing strictly for nicotine in their system. This policy which is supposed to be

a non-smoking policy is treating all those who use tobacco or have nicotine in their system as
similar. They are however, not similar in relevant respects since not all of them are smoking.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposition of my moral judgement
are as follows: they are treating all those employees or applicants as the same since anyone who
smokes is fired or not hired. They are treating anyone who has nicotine in their system the same,
so everyone who has it will be fired. This applies to all their employees and applicants, so they
are treating similar people in relevant respects treated similarly. Furthermore, those who do not
smoke are not fired, so they are similar people in relevant respects treated similarly. The
company is treating all their employees and applicants under the same policy and not treating
people differently.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgement
outweighs the opposite conclusion: the test that is administered to determine if there is nicotine
in the employees system is flawed in that it does treat smokers and those who use alternative
sources of tobacco similarly. Those two groups of people are not similar enough in relevant
respects to beat treat similarly. The policy is supposed to make people stop smoking or they will
be fired; however, the test that is administered cannot sufficiently determine people who smoked
and those who used alternative ways of using tobacco. They base it off of if they have nicotine in
their system. I believe this is a stronger case than all the employees are treated the same, because
it narrows down the group to a smaller group. Justice theory, I believe, is a much stronger
position for my moral judgement than for the opposite conclusion.
According to Care Theory, the relevant facts that support my moral judgement are as
follows: the company is not treating its employees with the appropriate care, and the relationship

that is important in this case is between the employees and the company. This policy is almost an
ultimatum to the employees that smoke that they have to stop, or they will be fired. They are
giving those employees no choice in the manner, so this would make them angry or harm them.
As I had stated before with Rights Theory, the company is invading the employees social
privacy, and the company is not showing the appropriate care to its own employees which could
cause them psychological harm. They are instead causing them harm. The company should show
some leniency, and instead be trying to provide an incentive to get their employees to stop
smoking not give them a requirement for them to stop smoking. Providing them with incentive
would show that they really care for their employees and want them to live healthier lives. The
policy is making the employees stop smoking, so the company is threatening the employees
careers and causing them some sort of harm mentally or psychologically. This policy could put
more pressure on the employees to stop smoking which could cause them psychological harm.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite conclusion of my moral
judgement are as follows: the company may care about their employees enough that they are
strongly pushing them to stop smoking to try to get them to live healthier lives. They want their
employees to be healthier, so that everyone in the company can prosper, especially from the
potential decrease in the health care costs. The company may also be exhibiting care to those
employees who do not smoke but are victims of the secondhand smokes that they may face every
day. The relationship between the employees who do not smoke and the company would show a
perfect example of the Care Theory because the company is showing appropriate care of their
employees well-being by trying to get rid of the dangerous secondhand smoke. The company
wants to promote a healthier lifestyle for the employees that do smoke, so they want to make
them stop doing such an unhealthy habit that smoking is. The methods may be drastic since the

company will fire the employees that do smoke, but it could provide the inspiration for those
employees to stop smoking.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgement
outweighs the opposite conclusion: it is because that the policy is so drastic and extreme that it
causes psychological harm to the employees because it invades their social privacy. The
company would not be showing the appropriate care to its employees because it is invading their
privacy. For the company to investigate their employees private lives, it must be in something
that significantly influences their work performance in any way. If smoking does not, in fact,
cause any change to the employees work performance, then the company does not have the
obligation to look into this part of their employees private lives. The company and its policy is
harming its employees by digging into their private lives through the test that they administer.
The company is harming its employees because of the policy and not showing appropriate care
to them. Thus, the policy would not be morally acceptable based on the Care Theory moral
standard.
According to Catholic Social Teaching, the relevant facts that support my moral
judgement are as follows: people are communal beings who have a transcendent end, people
have certain natural rights and should be treated with justice. People are communal beings who
have a transcendent end. With the key word being communal, or social, beings, people may
socialize through their smoking habits. They also have a certain social privacy that should not be
invaded. Smoking or not smoking does not or should not have an effect on a persons
transcendent end. This non-smoking policy violates a persons ability to act as communal beings.
It harms them and invades their own social privacy. So, the non-smoking policy violates a
persons ability to be communal beings. This non-smoking policy violates certain natural rights

that people have. It violates the part with the right to liberty and right to adequate working
conditions. As I explained in the natural rights portion of the argument, the policy infringes a
persons certain natural rights. Finally, people should be treated with justice. As it states in the
yellow sheet, they should be given what is necessary to allow them to live minimum level of
human dignity and reflect their intrinsic value and worth. If smoking allows them to maintain
that level of dignity and worth, then they should be allowed to do that; furthermore, the company
should not have a say in what they can do to maintain the minimum level of human dignity and
worth. Making them stop smoking would not allow them to continue with that.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my conclusion are as
follows: people have a fundamental dignity of worth as creatures made in Gods image and they
have certain natural rights. Peoples fundamental dignity and worth could mean that since
smoking is unhealthy, then it does not add to their fundamental dignity and worth. Smoking
could negatively affect their dignity and worth since it harms them physically. Secondly, people
has certain rights. The smoking policy helps protect certain natural rights to those employees
who do not smoke. That is further explained in the section of natural rights earlier in the paper.
In my final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgement
outweighs the opposite conclusions: The non-smoking policy restricts people from being
communal, or social with other people. Some people may connect through the social aspect of
smoking together. The main reason this is communal is it also connects to peoples social privacy
since smoking is part of that privacy. Violating their chance to be social through smoking would
interfere with them being communal beings.