Abigail Thomas

Business Law and Ethics

[Link] the reading lists more, you can summarize the different “sources” of law in the United

States into three categories: Administrative Law, Statutory Law (including the constitution), and

Common Law (from case decisions). How do they each differ? What branch of government is

primarily responsible for creating each source?

The Administrative Law consists of administrative agencies, which exist at the federal

state, and local governments. They are groups of people who have created a legislature to

oversee a specific law. Since legislatures are not capable of managing the needs of all the laws,

the legislatures delegate the needs to these agencies. They are also a source of law since they

encourage a set of rules, which include describing the agency’s practice, interpreting that

practice, and then implementing it. The Statutory Law consists of the Constitution and

legislatures. The federal legislature gets its power from the Constitution and is a source of law

since it enacts a statutory law. A statute is a law passed by a legislature. An example of this

would be OSHA. The Common Law is a law resulting from cases. When a case has concluded,

the final decision is known as a precedent. There are two types, binding, and persuasive. Binding

precedents must be followed in court, and a persuasive precedent is not required but must be

considered in court. The Executive Branch of government is responsible for the Administrative

Branch. The Legislative Branch is responsible for the Statutory Law. The Judicial Branch of

government is responsible for the Common Law.

[Link] Civil lawsuits…

[Link] are the two parties?

The two parties for civil lawsuits are the plaintiff and the defendant. The

plaintiff files the lawsuit, and the defendant is being sued.

[Link] is the burden of proof?

The burden of proof is with the preponderance of the evidence and the

obligation of the plaintiff is to show one of the parties in the trial

the evidence that claims his statement against the defendant is true.

This is used to prove or disprove the claims made by the plaintiff against

the defendant.

[Link] “punishment” can be imposed on the defendant?

Civil cases usually only result in monetary damages or injunctions, which

are the orders to either do or not do something. An example of this

would be the defendant being required to pay the plaintiff based on the

amount of loss that is determined by the judge.

[Link] Criminal lawsuits…

[Link] are the two parties?

acts on behalf of the state and seeks to bring justice to the victim.

The defendant is being accused by the state.

[Link] is the burden of proof?

The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case and

relies on the prosecution. There is no requirement that the

defendant needs to be proven innocent. The prosecution must go to great

lengths to prove the defendant is guilty.

[Link] “punishment” can be imposed on the defendant?

In criminal cases, the punishment may be time in jail or fines. The

punishment could also be death in extreme cases. These types of

cases have many protections in place, and it is harder to prove the

defendant is guilty.

[Link] a person robs a jewelry store, stealing $1000 worth of necklaces and rings.

Could they be held responsible in both criminal AND civil court? Why or why not?

If a person were to rob a jewelry store, they could be held responsible in criminal court to

prove that the defendant, or robber, committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil

case, the plaintiff, or jewelry store, would sue the defendant for their loss in goods.

[Link] I do not want to sue someone with whom I have a dispute with. What are the

three options, besides a lawsuit, that can I pursue? How does each work?
 The three options are negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Negotiation is usually

attempted first to resolve the dispute. This helps both parties to settle the dispute and to control

the solution. This is a more casual, informal approach. Mediation is an informal approach to

litigation. Mediators are trained to handle negotiations effectively and bring both parties together

to work out a settlement or agreement. An example of two parties where a mediator is needed is

between investors and their brokers. Arbitration is a more formal approach. Prior to the dispute,

both parties would enter into a binding agreement. If disputes come up before entering into the

binding agreement, then the parties can petition for a court to get involved. Arbitrators do not

have to be lawyers and the parties can choose an arbitrator that would suit them best. This

method has been used in labor and construction.

[Link] is the study of choosing right from wrong. There are a number of ways to make this

decision, but some strategies or “frameworks” are more effective for a large audience than

others. I have provided a number of links for you, and you are welcome to seek out your own as

well. As part of your Week 1 written assignment, please answer the following:

[Link] are subjective ethical frameworks, like Relativism, unworkable on a larger scale?

Subjective ethical frameworks explore the concept that each individual has the right to

believe in what is good for them and allow it to dictate their daily life. This theory also

represents the idea that there is no moral right or wrong, since every person is choosing the

beliefs that are best for them. All points of view are equally valid, and the truth is different from

person to person. This is unworkable on a larger scale because if every person were to choose a

truth that is best for them, a consensus would never be made. There would be no sense of order

or direction for the culture/organization/group. It is important for there to be representation for

consensus of the truth for that particular group of people/organizations. This theory is more

practical for smaller groups of people such as school systems and churches, where it is easier to

manage different beliefs and opinions, while still keeping the peace.

[Link] ethics, often called Kantianism after its founder, Immanuel Kant, is

primarily concerned with two “categorical imperatives.” What are they?

Kantianism’s two “categorical imperatives” are 1. Act in a way that the rule for your

action could be universalized and 2. Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end.

Therefore, never use anyone to get something else. The first version is relatable to the “golden

rule,” which is to treat others like you would want to be treated. An example would be if you

were to lie to on a resume and give yourself the excuse that everyone lies, so it is okay. Well, if

everyone were to go around lying all the time, no one would take anyone seriously. Eventually,

there would be no point in lying at all. The second version explores the idea that people are not

instruments to get you where you want to go. An example would be making friends with

someone just so they would invite you to party on their boat. This is a dignity principle and has

to do with respecting other humans and act ethically.

[Link] is the most mathematical (and thus least impartial) way to determine if

something is ok to do. Why is that?

Utilitarianism is the principle that prioritizes the morally right decision in any conflict

that produces the most benefits for those involved. As long as the decision benefits those

involved, this theory does not take the lies or manipulation into account. We use this method of

reasoning in our daily decisions. It does not affect everyone equally because it only affects those
concerned. It does not take justice into consideration. Even though something may seem morally

justified, it could very well be a form of injustice. Those who follow this theory understand that

their morals are dependent on the balance of both beneficial and harmful consequences. This

theory is the most mathematical way to determine if something is okay to do because it balances

the benefits and harms of those affected. It allows the government and different organizations to

make decisions based on the group as whole, rather than individuals, even if that means that

some individuals are harmed in the process. Not everyone’s opinion is considered, which leaves

less room for debate and conflict.

[Link] Contract, or community-based ethics, is another objective framework. How can

you determine the “right” thing under social contract?

The Social Contract theory is based on the view that a person’s morals are dependent

upon an agreement to form the society that they live in. Socrates uses this objective framework

to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. It is usually

related to modern political theories and was given its first exposure by Thomas Hobbes. If we

live according to this contract, then we can live by our own morals and choices instead of living

under the rule of the divine, such as God. We determine the right thing under social contract by

creating laws, rules, and regulations as part of the agreement for those within the society. An

example of this is having students raise their hand when they have a question or comment in

class. Those who live in America follow the moral agreement for this society outlined in the

Constitution. The agreement is meant to give those who live in that society an idea of what is

right or wrong.