Answer:
The use of the term "ethical" sometimes is a bit too lax when applied to evaluate situations. However, sometimes, it can also be too harsh. In response to your two questions, these would be the answers:
1. The ethical question here would be whether Greedy was right in overusing a benefit that the charitable organization had with the First California Bank. As President of the organization, it is in the hands of Greedy to ensure not just development, but also sustainable development of the organization. However, in the course of his attempts to improve the growth and efficacy of Send Me Money, he abused the benefit of the overdraft, and not to just any extent, but to the negative balance of 10.000 dollars. Although his intentions were in favor of the organization, and he used the money wisely, there still lies the question of if he could not have accomplished just as much, without abusing a benefit that could very well mean the end of the organization. So the ethical issue is that although the intention of Greedy was in the benefit of the organization, he did not take the best interest of it into account, because if he had, he would have tried to accomplish his goals without bringing the debt so high.
2. I disapprove of the way that Bill Greedy acted because he could have accomplished much more realistic goals and not placed the organization at risk by raising the debt to a bank to such high levels. Even if he increased fundraising efforts, it is evident that these were not successful, as the debt is so high.
A government with a king or queen ruling over the area, and making most of the economic decisions along with members of the royal court, is known as a Monarchy.
Answer:
Yes we do have concerns
Explanation:
Taking antibiotics too often or for the wrong reasons can change bacteria so much that antibiotics don't work against them. This is called bacterial resistance or antibiotic resistance. Some bacteria are now resistant to even the most powerful antibiotics available. Antibiotic resistance is a growing problem.
It combines the salt water with the fresh water
Answer:
A. Selective.
Explanation:
This could be looked at in the sense of a little disorder from little Andrew, though the act is selective, it could also come up as mutuism. Some adults with selective mutism are fully capable of speech and understanding language but are physically unable to speak in certain situations, though speech is expected of them.
The behaviour may be perceived as shyness or rudeness by others. A child with selective mutism may be completely silent at school for years but speak quite freely or even excessively at home. There is a hierarchical variation among people with this disorder: some people participate fully in activities and appear social but do not speak, others will speak only to peers but not to adults, others will speak to adults when asked questions requiring short answers but never to peers, and still others speak to no one and participate in few, if any, activities presented to them.
