Answer:
Check below for explanations
Explanation:
A legal rule is one made and enforced by social or governmental organizations to guide and regulate the conduct of the people in a society while ethical responsibilities are morally based obligations that individuals and groups have towards each other, and their abilities to interpret and act upon these ethical standards.
Ethical standards are not the bases for forming legal rules and vice-versa. Some conducts may conform to legal standards but may not uphold the ethical principles of a particular society. Some legal requirements are not ethically required and some ethical requirements are also not necessarily supported by law. This makes legal rules insufficient for fulfilling ethical responsibilities.
A cosmetic company using a popular drug addict, who also is a musician as a brand ambassador does not break any legal rules but fails in their ethical responsibilities. This is because this act can promote the rate of drug addiction among young people.
The slave trade was legal in Europe in the mid seventeen century, but this out-rightly opposes ethical standards because the people that were traded as slaves during these periods were not made to enjoy their human right. This was legal because it was accepted by the European governments.
Answer:
The correct option is B) A purposive incentive
Explanation:
Incentives can be described as rewards given to person due yo their outstanding work.
A purposive incentive can be described as a cause which is served by a person who is passionate about the action or event.
In the scenario discussed in the question, Brandon is contributing to the environmental work because he is an environmentalist and gets satisfaction by doing it. This, itself is a reward. Hence, the scenario is example of purposive incentive.
Answer: 2; 4 ;1 ; 3
Explanation:
2. Bowman's capsule
4. proximal convoluted tubule
1. loop of Henle
3. distal convoluted tubule
Answer:
The Court ruled that the ban on affirmative action in the Michigan Constitution is Constitutional.
Explanation:
The Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is a case of affirmation, race and sex discrimination in public university admission.
On the 22nd of April, 2014 the court held that fourteenth Amendment's equal protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmation in education.
According to Justice Scalia, '' Constitution [forbids] government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception''. Justice Scalia believe that the people in Michigan followed the understanding of the clause as their fundamental law.
Other court associate Justice include; Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Badder Ginsburg. The Chief Justice for the case then is John Roberts.
