Answer:
Hedonism and utilitarianism are similar in their evaluation of the goal of moral behaviour as some version of pleasure or happiness and the minimization of its opposite. They can both view pleasure or happiness as simple and immediate, or complex and matured. Where they differ is the scope of evaluation which justifies the behaviour as moral. Hedonism tends to be individualistic while utilitarianism tends to be social. A utilitarian must evaluate the happiness result for the total consequence of an action, which typically effects many people. A hedonist could very well throw consequences to the wind if the action feels good to him or herself. In a sense, you might consider utilitarianism to be model for social hedonism.
Explanation:
credibility of the source usually means that you need to give credit to The Source by saying when it was published, where it was published or even by saying who wrote the source you are using. Hope I helped!
If there is a tie in the electoral college between two candidates, it is then up to the House of Representatives to pick the winner. Each state delegate would have one vote in this tie-breaker election. The Senate would be responsible for picking the Vice-President in the aforementioned scenario. This has happened just a few times in US history.
It's true cause well i cant really explain it but twust me pwease
1) the king could not tax the people without the agreement of Parliament
2)the king could not declare the martial law
3) the king could not broad soldiers in private homes during peacetime
4)the king could not imprison a person without a specific charge
I was confused but I think this is right sorry if its not
