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.
Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson were the men who represented the anti-federalists in the ratification battle. Hope this helped :)
It did a couple things for them.
A) It provided money to pay for their education
B) It guaranteed a years worth of money whilst they look for other employment
Answer:
D
Explanation: My prediction would be answer D because why would you need a toilet just to fart in it, and people often fart from the amount of food they eat such as an oreo. This is only a prediction, just guessing.
