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.
Answer:
How are we defining "ideal"?
Explanation:
Answer:
Dipomatic incident that happened between the French and the English in late 1700s. Resulting in a half/quasi war.
Explanation:
I believe the answer is b
hope this helps
I could be wrong
A. She burned 300 protestants at the stake.
