When an Australian hunter gives away most of his meat to relatives without specifying what is expected in return, he is exemplifying: <u>generalized reciprocity.</u>
<u></u>
Generalized reciprocity is a phenomenon in which individuals treat other people as they have treated others in the past. In addition to behavioral outcomes, it remains unclear whether intentional information also manipulates generalized interaction behavior.
Generalized reciprocity is giving without expecting an immediate return. For example, if you are shopping with a friend and you buy him a cup of coffee, you might expect him to buy you a cup in return at some point in the future.
Generalized reciprocity refers to a mode of exchange for goods and/or services in which the giver and recipient do not maintain accurate books of value or determine the amount or duration of returns.
<u></u>
Learn more about reciprocity here: brainly.com/question/673545
#SPJ4
The right lane.
:) Hope this helps!!
Answer:
Losing telephone privileges for breaking curfew
Explanation:
Punishment by removal is also called Negative removal. It involves the removal of a good and very pleasant stimulus after a repulsive or displeasing behavior has been exhibited. The aim of the punishment is to reduce such behavior. The punishment is usually meted out to children in a bid to correct them knowing fully well if they exhibit such behavior again then such privileges will be taken away from them.
This is the kind of concept a utilitarian would agree on. If the result is positive for a large group of people, we should seriously consider doing it.
However, I would like to comment on this concept. In my opinion (and that's what you're asking for) there are situations in which the ends don't justify the means. You can e.g. think about mass-bombings to fight against terrorism. However, the possibility exists that innocent people will be hit, and will die. Therefore, the end don't always justify the means (in my opinion).