Kenny Michaels is a sophomore in college and he has belonged to a fraternity for two years. This fraternity “hazes” or actively initiates its pledges or potential members. These activities sometimes include dangerous and/or illegal activities. Kenny willingly and eagerly participates in these hazing activities. What level of moral development characterizes Kenny’s beliefs and actions?
a. pre-conventional
b. conventional
c. post-conventional
d. ultra-conventional
b. conventional
You might also like to view...
What do we mean by "once-and-done" service? Why is employee "ownership" of the problem necessary for this to succeed? What company is identified as an example of this in the chapter?
What will be an ideal response?
If a partnership has been dissolved in violation of the partnership agreement, the ________.
A. remaining partners forfeit the right to wind up the business B. court appoints a representative as receiver to wind up the business C. court, by itself, liquidates the assets of the business D. innocent partners have the right to liquidate the partnership assets
What is the "paradox" of being a coalition founder?
A. The founder's early share in the coalition is large, and grows as more members are added. B. Early in the coalition-building process, the founder may have to give away a lot in order to apparently gain a little. C. The founder is usually not a part of the leadership of the coalition. D. The founder's position shifts from strength to weakness as the coalition grows.
The PLIVA, Inc v. Mensing case discussed in the text, involved the issue of whether the federal law requirement that generic drugs must bear the same FDA-approved labels as their brand-name counterparts preempts state law claims for failure to warn. What was the holding by the US Supreme Court?
a. That federal law did not preempt state law claims for failure to warn. b. That federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn. c. That federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn based on strict liability but that failure to warn claims based on negligence could proceed. d. That federal law preempted state law claims for failure to warn based on negligence but that failure to warn claims based on strict liability could proceed.