1. Utilizing the three major ethical approaches (utilitarian, virtue, and rights- based) answer the following questions: should employers have the right to screen job applications for generally identifiable health conditions (or statistically probable health conditions) before hiring them? What value between the employers and the applicant are in tension and which should win out? Now after considering the question related to health conditions modify the example in such a way that the genetic test is designed to identify a gene that is able to fairly accurately predict when a person is disposed to 'be a hard worker.' Call this the 'lazy gene' test. Should an employer be allowed to screen job applicants to see if applicants are genetically disposed to 'be a hard worker'?

Does your answer here apply only to US firms or do you see it generalizing globally? In both of the above cases assume that the employer is fully informs job applicant that such testing is being done as a result of a blood draw during the pre- employment physical. Applicants can simply not apply for the job if they do not want to be subject to genetic screening. Of course, if such tests become standard business practice, then a person might have little choice but no 'consent' to such tests if they want to earn a living.