Utilitarian ethics is a theory suggests that if playing the killer in simulated killing leads to more unhappiness than not doing so, then playing the killer is wrong.
About Utilitarian ethics
An ethical theory known as utilitarianism establishes right from wrong by emphasising results. It embodies consequentialism in some way. According to utilitarianism, the decision that will result in the greatest benefit for the largest number of people is the most morally right one. For instance, the utilitarian viewpoint holds that you should select the flavour of ice cream that will make you feel the happiest if you are making a decision for yourself. If you like chocolate but detest vanilla, go with chocolate for the delight it will provide and stay away from vanilla as it will make you unhappy.
Consequentialist, welfareist, impartial, and aggregationist are the four distinguishing traits shared by all ethical systems in the utilitarian family. They consequently place the highest moral priority on advancing everyone's general well-being.
To know more about utilitarianism:
brainly.com/question/29313132
#SPJ4
Answer:
Definitely the first one not sure what other?
Answer:
The answer is supply partnership.
Explanation:
Supply chain partnership is an increasing tendency towards the development of long term relationships with suppliers. This can be achieve throught a variety of channels of wich the most common are:
-Sigle sourcing (buying from one supplier)
-Preferred supplier (limiting suppliers to certain organisations wich are then ranked)
-Strategics alliances (vallued-added partnerships in which risk and rewards are shared between the supplier and the costoumer)
In general, partnerships are sought with suppliers with outstanding performance, desirable/unique products, or technological advantage.
The correct answer would be
C) Makes borrowers financially unappealing.
Hope this helps you! ;)
Answer:
Has an exposure to negligent misrepresentation.
Explanation:
Negligent misrepresentation occurs when a person, in this case the agent in the exercise, has made a statement about something or someone (in this case a property) without having any reason to believe it true. As the name says, negligent misrepresentation; the agent should've noticed a clearly visible and obvious problem (negligence) and then he said it was all ok (misrepresentation).
