A consequentialist approach to ethics is an approach that claims that the morality of an action depends on its outcome. This means that an action is "good" is the consequence it brings is good as well. An example of such a theory is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that an action is morally good if it leads to the most happiness for greatest number of people. However, an objection that can be made to this theory is that utility and happiness are subjective, as well as difficult to measure.
On the other hand, non-consequentialist ethics state that the morality of an action is based on the rightness and wrongness of the actions themselves and not the consequences of those actions. An example of this is the Natural Rights Theory, which states that humans have an inherent right to certain rights, regardless of human behaviour. However, it is unclear who has the right to state what these rights are, which has led to criticism of the theory.
Serveral negative outcomes from dropping out of high school is
-It would be hard to get a good paying job without completing your grade 12.
-You would have to complete your grade 12 in a lower institude if you decide to drop out on a young age.
Answer:
Blame Others for Their Own Prejudices
Explanation:
Ethnically diverse schools contain students from different social and ethnic backgrounds. In such schools, students tend to feel safe since they can transfer blame on other students of different race or religion or color for the mistakes and prejudices they commit. Students from superior race or culture will easily blame those who come from lower race or culture to hide their misdemeanor.
Answer: Flynn effect
Explanation:
Here, in this particular case Dr. Mason understands the effect of the <em>Flynn Effect </em>on the study he is conducting. The study being conducted is about the intelligence difference in between two generations. Flynn effect is referred to as the consequential and the long-maintained increase in the fluid and the crystallized IQ test score which were evaluated in several states and nations of the world in the twentieth century.
Truth-in-sentencing laws aim to preserve the time sentence set for criminals at the time of their conviction. Advocates of these policies argue that when an individual is sentenced for 5 to 7 years and ends up getting released after serving 3 or 4, it constitutes deception and <u>a disservice to "the public's right to know"</u>.
Since 1994 in the U.S., the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act started giving out additional funding as an incentive to states that <u>ensure criminals convicted of violent crimes serve </u><u>at least 85% of their sentence</u><u>. Up until 2008, 35 of the 50 states have kept up these standards.</u>
Hope this helps!
