Answer:
Explanation:
▼ Coffee beans purchased by a coffee shop (intermediate good)
▼ One share of Google stock (neither)
▼ A new pick-up truck purchased by a consumer (final good)
▼ A new home purchased by a family (final good)
In order to answer this question, I will use two different perspectives of ethics: the consequentialist perspective, and the deontological perspective.
Consequentialism argues that the morality of an action lies with its consequences. This means that an action with bad consequences is an immoral action, and vice versa. In this case, killing the last remaining Redwood would not have any negative consequence on any being in the world, as no one benefits from it anymore. This means that the act is not immoral.
A deontological perspective states that there are principles that should be taken as rules, and which govern what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, rules and duties are central. For example, a principle might state that "all life is valuable." As the Redwood falls under the definition of life, killing it would be considered an immoral action.
Missionaries helped spread Buddhism through China and other Asian countries.
Answer:
C) Shanika pays $35.88 more than Vanessa.
Explanation:
This is because when doing the math, which is very simple, you can notice that, even though Shanika and Vanessa are using almost the same amount of energy during the 30 day period, <u>the plan that Vanessa is using gives her an advantage regarding the on-peak and off-peak hours</u>, which ultimately makes Shanika pay more than Vanessa.
Freud would say that is, "it has been sublimated into a socially desirable behavior." This is sort of a defense mechanism, in which socially inadmissible driving forces or admirations are unwittingly changed into socially adequate activities or conduct, perhaps bringing about a long haul transformation of the underlying motivation.
