Solution Manual for
Business Law with UCC Applications 16e Sukys
Chapter 1
Answers to Text Problems
PART 1 ETHICS, LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Chapter 1 Ethics, Social Responsibility, and the Law
Case in Point Questions
(Note: The answers to these questions can be found in the Case in Point features at the
opening of each chapter in BLUCCA 16 or in the text of each chapter. Consequently, to
ensure accuracy, the answers are taken directly from the Cases in Point feature and/or the
text. Student answers should reflect this, but should either be written in the student‘s own
words or, when quoted, cited appropriately.)
1.Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical
options covered in Chapter 1.
2.Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical
options covered in Chapter 1.
3.Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical
options covered in Chapter 1.
4.Yes.Max Weber argues that two-levels of morality exist, represented by the ethic of
ultimate ends for individuals and an ethic of responsibility for national leaders. The
ethic of ultimate ends must be practiced by individuals because individuals can never
completely foresee ―the ultimate ends‖ of their actions. Therefore, individuals must
obey absolute moral precepts, such as ―always help the poor and less fortunate,‖ or
1
© McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.
, "turn the other cheek," or "always tell the truth,‖ despite the fact that the ultimate
consequences of those actions are unclear or uncomfortable.
On the other hand, the ethic of responsibility demands that moral actors—in this case,
national leaders—must mconsider mtheir mresponsibilities mto mthose mpeople mwho
mdepend mon mthose mleaders mfor msafety mand msecurity. mSo, mfor mexample, mif ma
mneighboring mnation mis mbelligerent, maggressive, mor mdetermined mto mfight mancient
mcultural, mreligious, mand methnic mwars, mthe mleaders mof mthe mfirst mnation mcannot
mignore mthat mthreat, mas mmuch mas mthey mmight mwant mto. mIn mshort, mthey mare
mnot mpermitted mto m―turn mthe mother mcheek‖ mbecause mto mdo mso mwould
mendanger mthe minnocent mpeople mthey mhave mthe mduty mto mprotect. mUnfortunately,
mmany mnational mleaders mfail mto msee mthis mdistinction. mThe mleaders mof mthe
mUnited mStates mhave mbeen mespecially mguilty mof mthis mshortsightedness. m
5.The mexistence mof mthe msocial mcontract mpermits mpeople mto mlive mtogether min mpeace
mand mharmony, mbut mit mdoes mnot mpermit manyone, mnot meven mthe mleader, mto
mviolate mthe mcore mrights mof mlife mand msecurity. mShould ma mleader mconsistently
mviolate mcore mrights, mthen mthe mpeople mhave ma mduty mto mdemand mthat msuch
moppressive mand mdangerous mbehavior mend. m
Questions mfor mReview mand mDiscussion m
1.The mlaw mis ma mset mof mrules mmade mby mthe mgovernment mto mpromote mstability,
mharmony, mand m justice. mMorality minvolves mthe mvalues mthat mare mthe mfoundation
mfor mmoral mdecision m making. mEthics mis ma mway mto mfigure mout mwhat mthose
mvalues mmight mbe. m
2.Traditional mnatural mlaw msees mlaw mas moriginating mfrom man mobjective, msuperior
mforce mthat mstands moutside mthe meveryday mexperience mof mmost mpeople.
mHistorically, mnatural mlaw mhad mits morigin min mthe mclassical mJudeo-Christian
mbelief min ma mDivinity mthat mcreated, mcontrols, mand mrules mthe mphysical muniverse
maccording mto ma mset mof muniversal mlaws mthat mcame mfrom mthe mwill mof mthe
mDivinity. mSimilarly, mmodern mnatural mlaw malso msees mlaw mas moriginating mfrom
man mobjective morigin mpoint; mhowever, mthat morigin mpoint mis mneither
mtranscendent mnor msupernatural mbut mis, minstead, mconceived mof mby mthe mhuman
mmind. mThus, mthe msource mof mnatural mlaw mcomes mfrom mwithin mthe mmind mof
msocial mphilosophers, msuch mas mThomas mHobbes, mJean mJacques mRousseau,
, mImmanuel mKant, mand mJean mPaul mSartre, meach mof mwhom mclaimed mto mhave
mfound mthe mcorrect mobjective mstandard mof mhuman mmorality. m
2
© mMcGraw mHill mLLC. mAll mrights mreserved. mNo mreproduction mor mdistribution mwithout mthe mprior mwritten
mconsent mof mMcGraw mHill mLLC. m
, 3.Non-judgmentalism mis mthe mtendency mto mbe mtolerant mof mevery mtype mof mbehavior
meven mthe mmost mreprehensible macts mimaginable, mso mthat, min mturn, myour mown
mmost mreprehensible mactions mwill mnot mbe mjudged mby mothers. mIn mcontrast,
mhyper-intolerance mcan mbe mdefined mas mopen mhostility mto mthe mviews, mideas,
mtraditions, mand mprinciples mof mbelief mheld mand mpracticed mby mothers. m
4.The msocial mcontract moption mholds mthat mright mand mwrong mare mmeasured mby mthe
mobligations mimposed mon meveryone mby man mimplied magreement mor mcontract
mamong mall mthe mpeople mwithin ma mparticular msocial msystem. m
5.The msteps min mapplying mutilitarianism mare mas mfollows: m
a.The maction mto mbe mevaluated mshould mbe mstated min munemotional, mgeneral
mterms. mFor mexample, m―stealing manother mperson‘s mproperty‖ mis
memotional mlanguage; m
―confiscating mproperty mfor mone‘s mown muse‖ mis msomewhat mless
memotional. m
b.Every mperson mor mclass mof mpeople mthat mwill mbe maffected mby mthe
maction mmust mbe m identified. m
c.Good mand mbad mconsequences min mrelation mto mthose mpeople maffected
mmust mbe m considered. m
d.All malternatives mto mthe maction mstated min mstep m1 mmust mbe mconsidered. m
e.Once mstep m4 mhas mbeen mcarried mout, ma mconclusion mmust mbe mreached.
mWhichever malternative mcreates mthe mgreatest mgood mfor mthe mgreatest mnumber
mof mpeople maffected mby mthe maction mis mthe mone mthat mought mto mbe mtaken. m
6.The mrational moption mis ma mphilosophical mtheory mthat masserts munequivocally mthat
mhuman mbeings, mbecause mof mtheir minnate mcapacity mfor mrational mthought, mcan
mdetermine mthe mnature mand mapplication mof methical mvalues. mThe mtheory massumes
mthat mbecause mall mhuman mbeings mare mrational, mall mhuman mbeings mought mto
mhave mthe msame methical mvalues. mTherefore, mrational methics mcan mestablish
muniversal mrules mof mbehavior mthat malways mapply mto mall mpeople. mFor mthis
mreason, mthe mrational moption mis moften mreferred mto mas mobjective methics mor
mnormative methics. mSince mthe mrational moption malso mfocuses mon mduties mrather
mthan mrights, mit mis malso mcalled mdeontological methics. mIn mits mpure mform, mthe
mword mdeontological mmeans m"words mof mduty"coming mfrom mthe mGreek mwords
mdeon, mduty, mand mlogos, mword mor mutterance. m
Business Law with UCC Applications 16e Sukys
Chapter 1
Answers to Text Problems
PART 1 ETHICS, LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Chapter 1 Ethics, Social Responsibility, and the Law
Case in Point Questions
(Note: The answers to these questions can be found in the Case in Point features at the
opening of each chapter in BLUCCA 16 or in the text of each chapter. Consequently, to
ensure accuracy, the answers are taken directly from the Cases in Point feature and/or the
text. Student answers should reflect this, but should either be written in the student‘s own
words or, when quoted, cited appropriately.)
1.Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical
options covered in Chapter 1.
2.Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical
options covered in Chapter 1.
3.Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical
options covered in Chapter 1.
4.Yes.Max Weber argues that two-levels of morality exist, represented by the ethic of
ultimate ends for individuals and an ethic of responsibility for national leaders. The
ethic of ultimate ends must be practiced by individuals because individuals can never
completely foresee ―the ultimate ends‖ of their actions. Therefore, individuals must
obey absolute moral precepts, such as ―always help the poor and less fortunate,‖ or
1
© McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.
, "turn the other cheek," or "always tell the truth,‖ despite the fact that the ultimate
consequences of those actions are unclear or uncomfortable.
On the other hand, the ethic of responsibility demands that moral actors—in this case,
national leaders—must mconsider mtheir mresponsibilities mto mthose mpeople mwho
mdepend mon mthose mleaders mfor msafety mand msecurity. mSo, mfor mexample, mif ma
mneighboring mnation mis mbelligerent, maggressive, mor mdetermined mto mfight mancient
mcultural, mreligious, mand methnic mwars, mthe mleaders mof mthe mfirst mnation mcannot
mignore mthat mthreat, mas mmuch mas mthey mmight mwant mto. mIn mshort, mthey mare
mnot mpermitted mto m―turn mthe mother mcheek‖ mbecause mto mdo mso mwould
mendanger mthe minnocent mpeople mthey mhave mthe mduty mto mprotect. mUnfortunately,
mmany mnational mleaders mfail mto msee mthis mdistinction. mThe mleaders mof mthe
mUnited mStates mhave mbeen mespecially mguilty mof mthis mshortsightedness. m
5.The mexistence mof mthe msocial mcontract mpermits mpeople mto mlive mtogether min mpeace
mand mharmony, mbut mit mdoes mnot mpermit manyone, mnot meven mthe mleader, mto
mviolate mthe mcore mrights mof mlife mand msecurity. mShould ma mleader mconsistently
mviolate mcore mrights, mthen mthe mpeople mhave ma mduty mto mdemand mthat msuch
moppressive mand mdangerous mbehavior mend. m
Questions mfor mReview mand mDiscussion m
1.The mlaw mis ma mset mof mrules mmade mby mthe mgovernment mto mpromote mstability,
mharmony, mand m justice. mMorality minvolves mthe mvalues mthat mare mthe mfoundation
mfor mmoral mdecision m making. mEthics mis ma mway mto mfigure mout mwhat mthose
mvalues mmight mbe. m
2.Traditional mnatural mlaw msees mlaw mas moriginating mfrom man mobjective, msuperior
mforce mthat mstands moutside mthe meveryday mexperience mof mmost mpeople.
mHistorically, mnatural mlaw mhad mits morigin min mthe mclassical mJudeo-Christian
mbelief min ma mDivinity mthat mcreated, mcontrols, mand mrules mthe mphysical muniverse
maccording mto ma mset mof muniversal mlaws mthat mcame mfrom mthe mwill mof mthe
mDivinity. mSimilarly, mmodern mnatural mlaw malso msees mlaw mas moriginating mfrom
man mobjective morigin mpoint; mhowever, mthat morigin mpoint mis mneither
mtranscendent mnor msupernatural mbut mis, minstead, mconceived mof mby mthe mhuman
mmind. mThus, mthe msource mof mnatural mlaw mcomes mfrom mwithin mthe mmind mof
msocial mphilosophers, msuch mas mThomas mHobbes, mJean mJacques mRousseau,
, mImmanuel mKant, mand mJean mPaul mSartre, meach mof mwhom mclaimed mto mhave
mfound mthe mcorrect mobjective mstandard mof mhuman mmorality. m
2
© mMcGraw mHill mLLC. mAll mrights mreserved. mNo mreproduction mor mdistribution mwithout mthe mprior mwritten
mconsent mof mMcGraw mHill mLLC. m
, 3.Non-judgmentalism mis mthe mtendency mto mbe mtolerant mof mevery mtype mof mbehavior
meven mthe mmost mreprehensible macts mimaginable, mso mthat, min mturn, myour mown
mmost mreprehensible mactions mwill mnot mbe mjudged mby mothers. mIn mcontrast,
mhyper-intolerance mcan mbe mdefined mas mopen mhostility mto mthe mviews, mideas,
mtraditions, mand mprinciples mof mbelief mheld mand mpracticed mby mothers. m
4.The msocial mcontract moption mholds mthat mright mand mwrong mare mmeasured mby mthe
mobligations mimposed mon meveryone mby man mimplied magreement mor mcontract
mamong mall mthe mpeople mwithin ma mparticular msocial msystem. m
5.The msteps min mapplying mutilitarianism mare mas mfollows: m
a.The maction mto mbe mevaluated mshould mbe mstated min munemotional, mgeneral
mterms. mFor mexample, m―stealing manother mperson‘s mproperty‖ mis
memotional mlanguage; m
―confiscating mproperty mfor mone‘s mown muse‖ mis msomewhat mless
memotional. m
b.Every mperson mor mclass mof mpeople mthat mwill mbe maffected mby mthe
maction mmust mbe m identified. m
c.Good mand mbad mconsequences min mrelation mto mthose mpeople maffected
mmust mbe m considered. m
d.All malternatives mto mthe maction mstated min mstep m1 mmust mbe mconsidered. m
e.Once mstep m4 mhas mbeen mcarried mout, ma mconclusion mmust mbe mreached.
mWhichever malternative mcreates mthe mgreatest mgood mfor mthe mgreatest mnumber
mof mpeople maffected mby mthe maction mis mthe mone mthat mought mto mbe mtaken. m
6.The mrational moption mis ma mphilosophical mtheory mthat masserts munequivocally mthat
mhuman mbeings, mbecause mof mtheir minnate mcapacity mfor mrational mthought, mcan
mdetermine mthe mnature mand mapplication mof methical mvalues. mThe mtheory massumes
mthat mbecause mall mhuman mbeings mare mrational, mall mhuman mbeings mought mto
mhave mthe msame methical mvalues. mTherefore, mrational methics mcan mestablish
muniversal mrules mof mbehavior mthat malways mapply mto mall mpeople. mFor mthis
mreason, mthe mrational moption mis moften mreferred mto mas mobjective methics mor
mnormative methics. mSince mthe mrational moption malso mfocuses mon mduties mrather
mthan mrights, mit mis malso mcalled mdeontological methics. mIn mits mpure mform, mthe
mword mdeontological mmeans m"words mof mduty"coming mfrom mthe mGreek mwords
mdeon, mduty, mand mlogos, mword mor mutterance. m
