978-0136118671 Chapter 2 Solution Manual Part 1

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Part II – Exercise Solutions

Suggestions for using these solutions are provided above under the heading “Using the

Exercises.” An asterisk indicates that the solution is provided online to students.

Chapter 2

1.* Give a simple argument that breaking a promise, simply because it is convenient to do so,

fails the generalization test. Note that one can break a promise only if it is possible to make a

promise.

This is a clear application of Corollary 1 of the generalization principle. Breaking promises

It is true a good many promises would continue to be “kept,” simply the promised behavior is

something that people want to do anyway. But this would scarcely encourage anyone to believe

You might respond that you could still make a promise, and keep it or break it, even if nobody

took you seriously. But this is not a promise. It is only your statement that you will act in a

2. Give a simple argument that lying, merely for convenience, fails the generalization test.

Assume that the lie would achieve its purpose only if it is believed.

If people always lied whenever convenient, no one would believe the lies, and it would be

Lying is more serious than students might think. The very possibility of communication

It is true that we can often gather information even from lies. We can observe the tone of voice

Telling the truth is actually a special case of promise keeping. If I tell you something, I

3. As an ambulance driver, you normally use a siren and flashing lights only for an emergency.

At the moment you are driving the vehicle to an important meeting with your boss that may

determine whether you will be laid off due to budget cuts. You lingered a bit too long at lunch

before departing and therefore turn on the siren so that you can arrive on time. Suppose for the

sake of argument that this is legal. Is it generalizable?

Suppose ambulance drivers always used the siren when they were in a hurry for personal

At the very least, strict controls on the use of siren and lights would be put into place. You

4.* The situation is the same as in the previous exercise, except that you are running late

because of a very unusual traffic jam on the route. You can still arrive on time by using the

siren. Is this generalizable? What exactly is the scope in this case? Hint: If you are willing to

use the siren due to a traffic delay, would you be willing to use it for other kinds of delay? Why

not?

You might argue that this is different from the previous exercise because in that situation, it was

your fault that you were late. In the present case it is not your fault. You left ample time but

You might respond that your behavior is permissible in this case because the circumstances are

There are at least two problems with this argument. One, suggested by the hint, is that it draws

Another problem with your behavior is that it is a lie, essentially for convenience. You are

5. While walking down Fifth Avenue in New York City, you see a $100 bill on the pavement. You

take the money and spend it because you have no way of knowing who dropped it. This is legal,

but is it generalizable?

Presumably the reason for keeping the money is that you found it, you have no way of learning

who owns it, and you like free money. If everyone with these reasons behaved likewise, you

We occasionally hear stories of someone who finds a large cache of money, perhaps $100,000,

and turns it into the police. We are impressed by the honesty of the act, which suggests it is the

6. You shop at a grocery that arranges milk bottles so that the oldest ones are in front and the

freshest in the rear. You reach behind the older bottles to select the one at the very back. Your

reason for doing so is to obtain the freshest milk. Does your behavior pass the generalization

test?

If everyone reached for the back to obtain the freshest milk, then neither you nor they could

7. As you are about to board an aircraft, it is announced that the plane will be boarded by zones

to expedite the process. However, you would like to board before your zone is called to make

sure you can find space for your carry-on luggage in an overhead compartment. Is this

generalizable?

If everyone with bags boarded first, regardless of zones, boarding first would not ensure space

for the bags. The act is therefore generalizable under this rationale.

You might argue that you are boarding first to increase the probability that you will find luggage

space, not to make it a sure thing. Boarding early would increase the probability even if all the

If most people are already ignoring the zones, doing likewise may be generalizable. However,

8. While commuting home from work, you take a detour through a residential area to avoid a

congested main artery. Because only a few drivers take the detour, it removes several minutes

from your commuting time due to the light traffic. Is your action generalizable?

If all motorists wanting to avoid congestion took the alternate route, there would no longer be

advantage in doing so. It is therefore ungeneralizable.

This does not imply that it is unethical in general to take the fastest route. Generally, motorists

In this exercise, however, the residential route is faster because drivers are not seeking an

equilibrium.

9. In the previous exercise, suppose that a few commuters can drive through the residential area

unnoticed, but if many cars used the detour, the traffic would become a noisy and hazardous

nuisance in the neighborhood. Does this have a bearing on the generalizability of your action?

Even if many residential drivers would create a nuisance, this has no bearing on the

10. In Exercise 8, suppose that you are taking the detour only because few people know the city

as well as you do. If many people knew about the detour and were nonetheless avoiding it, you

would follow their example. Is your action generalizable?

Here, your reasons for taking the detour are that you want to save time, you know about the

route, and few others know. If everyone satisfying these reasons took the detour, you would still

11. Music shop temptation. While browsing in a music shop, you spot a CD recording of Arnold

Schönberg’s Pierrot Lunaire. You love this piece, but you are absolutely certain that no one else

within a thousand-mile radius can bear listening to this abstract atonal music. The shop is lax

about security, and you can easily walk out with the CD without being noticed. You conclude

that stealing the CD, because of your unique affection for what others regard as

incomprehensible noise, is generalizable. Are you right?

The issue is one of scope. You are not stealing the CD because it is a recording of Pierrot

You are stealing the CD because you like it and practically no one else does. So the test is what

12. Police have closed one lane of a highway due to an accident. A long queue of traffic has

formed in the lane that remains open, because drivers slow down to view the accident. However,

a few drivers bypass the queue by driving along another lane up to the point of closure and then

rely on polite drivers to let them merge at the front of the queue. Is this behavior generalizable?

Assume it is legal.

Presumably the reason for “cutting line” is to save time. If everyone who could save time by

cutting line did so, it would no longer save time. So cutting line is ungeneralizable.

The same behavior may be generalizable under another rationale. I might drive to the merge

13.* In the previous exercise, is it generalizable for a driver at the front of the queue to allow

someone to merge? Assume it is legal.

The answer depends on the rationales behind polite drivers and queue breakers. If the polite

However, if the reasons for yielding are that it is polite and yielding causes only minor delays for

drivers in the queue, then yielding may not be generalizable. If universal yielding would

Suppose, on the other hand, that few drivers would be inclined to cut line even if everyone were

14. You decide to play in an amateur tennis tournament because you know you are the best

player in town and will certainly win the trophy and prize money. This is the only reason you are

playing the tournament. Is your decision to play in the tournament generalizable? If not, under

what sort of rationale would your entry in the tournament be generalizable?

If all contestants were willing to enter the competition only if they could predict victory, then

On the other hand, if you are willing to compete if you have a reasonable chance of winning,

If you are willing to compete only if you are sure you will win, we may or may not have a

15.* You are considering whether your cable TV business should enter the market in

Anywheresville, which presently has no cable service. You expect a few other cable companies

will do the same. However, past experience in towns of this size shows that only one cable

provider will survive. Your only reason for entering the competition is to drive the other

companies out. Is a decision to enter this market generalizable?

This rationale may seem ungeneralizable because is impossible for all firms to be the only firm

However, if you are entering the market only because you will drive the others out of business,

You might respond that you can “win” in Anywheresville even if there is no competition, which

16.* Damage expense. Chris is a new hire at a manufacturing company, which pays his moving

expenses. However, the movers seriously damage an expensive piece of furniture. The

insurance covers only a small fraction of the cost. Chris mentions this to his boss Bob, who tells

him to cover it by padding his expense account over the next few months. Chris is surprised by

this suggestion, because in their previous conversations Bob has impressed him as having a high

sense of business ethics. (a) Is it generalizable for Chris to pad the expense reports? Be sure to

state the scope clearly. (b) Suppose coworkers tell Chris that this kind of padding goes on all

the time at the company. Does this change the analysis?

One’s first reaction might be that the movers should cover the damage, a claim that is hard to

assess because we don’t know the contractual obligations and type of insurance involved. Yet

The problem is that padding the expense report is deceptive. Normally deception is

Perhaps it is because if the boss is giving the OK, Chris can get away with the deception. But

Perhaps the reason is that if the boss gives the OK, then it is not really deception. The company

knows what is going on and is willing to tolerate a certain amount of expense padding to keep

If Chris can’t confirm that padding is standard practice, however, then there is no particular

reason to believe that nobody is deceived, and again we must ask why Chris would deceive in