Sociology Debate: Beneficence & Drug Testing at Australian Festivals

This sociology discussion board post presents an affirmative argument for taxpayer-funded mandatory drug testing at music festivals in Australia, grounded in the ethical principle of beneficence. The author contends that taxpayers have a moral obligation to reduce harm to festival-goers, particularly young people who may be susceptible to drug use due to peer pressure or lack of awareness. By funding drug testing facilities, tragedies like drug-related deaths can be prevented, protecting the future generation. The argument draws a parallel to the beneficent actions of doctors, suggesting that taxpayers can similarly contribute to the well-being of others by supporting initiatives that minimize potential harm at music festivals. The post includes references to support the ethical and practical considerations of the argument.

Running head: Sociology debate 1
Sociology debate
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation

Sociology debate 2
Affirmative - for tax payer money drug testing at music festivals
In this current age, most young people choose to consume drugs and illegal substances
for the pursuit of good moments and times (Drug analysis at music festivals, 2016). Even though
they freely choose to break the law, I believe most of them would never at any time agree to die
for illegal substances. Therefore, it may be appropriate for every taxpayer in Australia to have
the moral obligation to reduce the risk of harm for festival goers by having their taxpayer money
conduct mandatory drug testing in the festivals. Tragedies such as death can be avoided if drug
testing facilities are in place.
According to the ethical principle of beneficence, every individual should have the
foundational moral imperative of doing what is right to others (Cordelli, 2018). Therefore, in my
opinion, taxpayers should show their care by allowing their tax money to pay for mandatory drug
testing majorly in music festivals. This will promote the good of ensuring drug intoxication is
reduced among young Australians. Besides, out of the taxpayer’s actions, more deaths can be
prevented hence protecting the future generation.
Young people indulgence in drugs majorly out of peer pressure or lack of knowledge of
what the drugs might do to them. Therefore, taxpayers should take it as their ethical and moral
obligation to minimize potential harm on the young festival goers. For instance, practicing
doctors take beneficent actions for the sake of ensuring their patients improve as well as prevent
them from harm (Kioko & Meana, 2019). Therefore, as a taxpayer, I believe emulating this
gesture can be significant help and since taxpayers don’t have to be doctors in order to provide
assistance, their money can be used to ensure musical festival hoers undergo drug testing.

Sociology debate 3
References
Cordelli, C. (2018). Prospective Duties and the Demands of Beneficence. Ethics, 128(2), 373-
401.
Kioko, P. M., & Meana, P. R. (2019). Physician beneficence: the last stop for patients requesting
assisted suicide. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 214(3), 172-173.
We have a moral obligation to allow drug analysis at music festivals. (2016). Retrieved from
https://theconversation.com/we-have-a-moral-obligation-to-allow-drug-analysis-at-
music-festivals-65144