Law is not a static phenomenon, yet in certain ways it appears bounded and clear cut. Where it holds jurisdictional authority, law provides a set of rules for behavior. When these rules are broken, behavior is punishable. If you have been driving carelessly and hit another car, you might pay money damages. If you are caught stealing, you might go to jail. If you are caught polluting, you may be forced to stop. The creation of law and the delivery of sanctions for rule breaking are contested processes. How law is made, how it is enforced, and how it is interpreted are always in dispute, constantly changing, and responsive to the power relations that surround it. Still, we can identify its purposes: law both sets behavioral standards and sets up a system for compliance with them. Within the reach of a legal system, we are on notice that we must meet its standards or risk penalty. Chances are we were not directly involved in the making of the ruleswe may even disagree strongly with thembut we understand that the legal system shadows us anyway. It may be the closest we can get to a shared reality.

Ethics, on the other hand, presents a menu of options, often disconnected from official sanctions. While law concerns what we must do, ethics concerns what we should do. Suppose you work for an advertising agency and have just been offered a chance to work on a new ad campaign for a certain fast-food chain. Burgers, fries, and sodas are legal products. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, fast-food companies have the legal right to get their messages out to consumers. But you may believe that their ads are particularly attractive to children, who are at risk of becoming accustomed and even addicted to the empty calories that make them fat and unhealthy. Although no law requires it, you may feel you should decline to participate in the campaign. Or suppose a company manufactures a pesticide that can no longer be sold in the United States because the Environmental Protection Agency has banned its primary ingredient, but that can be sold in places like India or Africa, where environmental regulations are far less stringent. Legally, the company is free to sell its pesticide overseas; but should it?

Ethical preferences are not preselected for us by legislators or by judges; they involve critical consciousness, engaging each of us in a process of bringing reason and emotion to bear on a particular situation. The right way to behave is not necessarily a matter of aligning our actions with the norma community or religious norm, for instancealthough it may be.

The question of what should be done in a given situation, whether it be the right way to live our individual lives, the right way to run a business, or the right way for a government to function, is complicated by divergent and overlapping cultural inputs. Within the borders of the United States, and globally, we are confronted with a kaleidoscopic array of ethical traditions. Does this mean that there can be no such thing as consensus, no agreement about what is good behavior? While there are differences among us, we might identify a core set of values rooted in the kind of beings we are: We are all self-conscious, self-aware. We are all equipped to think rationally and to feel emotionally. And we are, by nature, dependent upon one another.

Today, 69 of the 100 largest economies in the world are multinational corporations. Comparing corporate revenues to the gross domestic product of nations, Walmart, China National Petroleum, Royal Dutch/Shell, Exxon Mobil, Volkswagen, Toyota, and BP all generated more income than Switzerland, Norway, Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Austria, Turkey, Denmark, Argentina, Finland, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, and Portugal, in 2015. The 10 largest companies in the world account for more income than most of the countries in the world combined.* In many ways, the impact of global business has been beneficial. Multinationals provide new jobs and produce new or less expensive goods and services. They introduce technology, capital, and skills to their host countries and raise the standard of living. On the other hand, multinationals have been blamed for taking advantage of weak and/or corrupt governments to exploit resources in developing countries; for implementing questionable safety, environmental, and financial practices; and for profiting from unsustainable technologies while using their political clout to block reasonable regulation. Multinational corporations are implicated in some of the world's most pressing problemsthe growing disparities between rich and poor, for example, and global climate change.

As bearers of a diverse set of cultural achievements, we need to find points of agreement, both in legal and ethical terms, as to how human societies can best flourish. And as participants in the global economy, we need to discover ways of tempering the tremendous power of the market so that the planet and its inhabitants will thrive.

Law must be stable, and yet it cannot stand still. Roscoe Pound

Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death, can erase our good deeds. Buddha

Business has become ... the most powerful institution on the planet. The dominant institution in any society needs to take responsibility for the whole. ... Every decision that is made, every action that is taken, must be viewed in light of that kind of responsibility. David Korten

Respond to the following question: "What is your opinion about the current relationship between law and society in your town/city, state, and/or country, based upon the above text excerpt and quotes? Please ground your opinion with at least three examples/justifications that support your opinion.