Question:
Which ethical system, consequence-based or reasoning based on ethical rules, most reflect the thinking used by the defendant, Ford Motor Company, in this case?
Answer:
The Ford Motor Company had employed none of the above approaches.
Explanation:
Ethics is deciding what is right or wrong in a reasoned, unbiased or unprejudiced way. When deciding ethically what is right or wrong there is two ways to look at it:
- From the consequence-based approach or
- the Ethical Rules approach
The consequence-based approach seeks to make good decisions or take good actions because good decisions usually lead to good outcomes while negative decisions usually lead to negative outcomes. The underlying premise here is that negative actions can sometimes be good.
Rule-based ethics on the other hand says that negative actions is ALWAYS translates.
If there was Law that backed up the decisions of Ford Motors because of the way the legislative process is structured (which is where a group of people known as the Congress are selected as representatives of the public to create laws on their behalf), such a law would be considered unconstitutional because knowingly creating a car that is unsafe for a human life goes against the foundation of any constitution especially that of the United States of America which indicates that
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”<em>that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are </em><em><u>Life</u></em><em>, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”</em>
Cheers
Explanation:
O D. To show what items are shipped by the carrier
mark ‼️ it brainliest if it helps you ❤️
Both theocratic monarchies and a monarchy are undemocratic and do not allow dissent or political freedom among citizens.
Yes, the defense witness's testimony should be allowed to show substantive evidence.
<h3>Who is a plaintiff?</h3>
A plaintiff can be defined as the person who bring a case to the court of law while a defendant is the person who was accused for committing and offence by the plaintiff.
Based on the scenario the attorney should allow the defendant bring or show the evidence that will help to prove that plaintiff was in fact a thief.
Therefore the defense witness's testimony should be allowed to show substantive evidence.
Learn more about plaintiff here:brainly.com/question/7315287
#SPJ12
Answer:
Testimony
Explanation:
Testimony refers to a type of evidence from a living person. When a person or a group of people makes a statement or declares a certain fact about the incident, it is termed to be a testimony. The statements are declared by taking a certain oath or liability, falling to which may lead to a penalty. It can be presented in both the written as well as in the oral form.
In the above excerpt, the evidence presented by the neighbor is in the oral form and is testimonial evidence about the incidence.
