Final answer:
The claim that the argument of Velásquez about business obligations to the international common good would weaken if the UN could enforce laws is false because his viewpoint is philosophical and not dependent on legal enforcement mechanisms.
Step-by-step explanation:
B. False. Manuel Velásquez argues that businesses are not inherently obligated to contribute to the international common good, but this argument would not necessarily weaken if an entity like the UN had the power to enforce laws internationally. The United Nations, while it sets obligations and rules of behavior for member states, does not have ultimate authority over its members. Member states still have sovereignty and their consent is necessary for the enforcement of UN decisions and laws. Therefore, the existence of a powerful entity like the UN does not change the argument made by Velasquez.
This is because the premise of Velásquez's argument lies in a philosophical stance about the nature of business obligations, which is not contingent on the existence or enforcement power of international bodies. In fact, if such an international body could enforce laws, this might actually strengthen the idea that businesses, as global actors, have duties towards the international common good imposed by a higher authority, changing the landscape of international business ethics.