According to the doctrine of double effect, when an action can lead to two effects, one intended and desirable and the other unintended and undesirable, the unintended, undesirable effect is morally tolerable if .

The unintended, undesirable effect is morally tolerable if it brings a good result.

Explanation: The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm.

According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end.

if the action itself is not immoral

Explanation: When actions are not immoral i.e they followed the standard guidelines governing the society, the resultant effects of such action if not desired or not intended can be morally tolerable but if the actions were immoral then the unintended or undesirable effects will also not be morally tolerable or accepted. Although undesirable effects are not means to a desirable consequences.

soothing tone) but quickly, the tone changes from a light tone to a grim one. by introducing disturbing word choices that are illogical.make a list of some of levertov’s images of war from both of her poems. how do her wordsaffect you? do you agree with her position on war? write a short response (at least 100 words) and support your answer with personal experience or your studiespoets can change the tone in a poem, and levertov does when the she refers to "delicate man . .whose eyes/are flowers that perceive the stars”. the word choices here are different. theimages began to show feelings of hope/potential. but this mood is interrupted with the dark oppressive words "entrails of still-alive babies" and "carcass-gulleys". levertov continues to switch tones by "the deep intelligence living at peace would have"—one is left with a sense of hope. i can connect with her words that humans can do better things than fight in war. we only have one life so dying in a war would be for no reason. also, i am a christian and in the bible, it says "thou shall not kill", and i strongly believe in that.people respond differently to satire—some like it, others don't get it. in at least 150 words, describe what you think of goines's narrative essay. discuss whether you think his position is convincing.the satire kept people's attention, rather than just rambling. instead of being dead serious, he adds humor to enlighten it. i think he did a good job of proving his point, but convincing people to stray from their own beliefs is hard, and satire can be offensive to that person. overall i think that goines's narrative essay was good because narrative essay create deeper understanding. i also like that the narrative essay is in first-person. the essay was filled with diction and word choice to let you know that the essay is going to be witty yet satirical. his point was to write  

explanation:

changes in factors like average income and preferences can cause an entire demand curve to shift right or left. this causes a higher or lower quantity to be demanded at a given price. demand curves relate the prices and quantities demanded assuming no other factors change. it is important for consumers to know this information, because it is crucial for them to know what they can afford and can't afford. i hope this .