Answer:
Explanation:
Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences. Here the phrase “overall consequences” of an action means everything the action brings about, including the action itself. For example, if you think that the whole point of morality is (a) to spread happiness and relieve suffering, or (b) to create as much freedom as possible in the world, or (c) to promote the survival of our species, then you accept consequentialism. Although those three views disagree about which kinds of consequences matter, they agree that consequences are all that matters. So, they agree that consequentialism is true. The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham is a well known example of consequentialism. By contrast, the deontological theories of John Locke and Immanuel Kant are nonconsequentialist.
Consequentialism is controversial. Various nonconsequentialist views are that morality is all about doing one’s duty, respecting rights, obeying nature, obeying God, obeying one’s own heart, actualizing one’s own potential, being reasonable, respecting all people, or not interfering with others—no matter the consequences.
This article describes different versions of consequentialism. It also sketches several of the most popular reasons to believe consequentialism, along with objections to those reasons, and several of the most popular reasons to disbelieve it, along with objections to those reasons.
Then, in 1873 the Métis of St. Laurent updated and formalized the laws of the prairie into a written document, known as the Laws of St. Laurent. These laws covered all aspects of Métis life in the district, not just the conduct of people engaged in the hunt.
The environmental legislation signed by President Bush in 1990 set stricter standards on pollution from factories. This was done to prevent the negative results of pollution, since everything concerning that was getting worse and worse.
The Articles of confederation was weak in that it had no power to tax, it couldnot enforce the laws in the constitution and couldn't maintain an army.In this case, the central government couldn't accoplish anything because it had no authority as all powers were placed on the states.
The Shays rebellion demostrated to the governement the need for a strong central government, one that could stand firm on basis of its laws and the constitution.This was achieved through the first revolution under the new government that led to the formation of a central government with strong powers and control.
In addition to that, the articles of confederation was weak because it prohibited the collection of direct taxes on income and property yet these taxes were necessary to facilitate the payment of war debts and to enable the country have a working economy.Shays rebellion exposed these weaknessess fro correction.
It's wheat. Wheat is a crop that you would find in temperate climates not tropical ones.
