Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
Answer:
1 Circle Map Graphic Organizer. ...
2 Spider Map Graphic Organizer. ...
3 Idea Wheel Graphic Organizer. ...
4 Idea Web Graphic Organizer. ...
5 Concept Map Graphic Organizer.
Explanation:
Answer: yes he did but with a cost to end slavery my frenid a short cool question man i love then web site.
Explanation:
The right to be left alone is protected by the Supreme Court decisions in Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade.
the right to be left alone
<u>Explanation:</u>
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Griswold v Connecticut case slackened the law that prohibited birth control. Birth control was considered illegal under the law in the state of Connecticut from the 1800s. The issue didn’t make it to the court till 1965.
The court decided that the prohibition of birth control wouldn’t remain valid anymore its 1965 judgment. The verdict ensured a person’s right to privacy by finding out that the birth control prohibition law violated a person’s right to marital privacy.
In the Roe v Wade case of 1973 the court ruled that a pregnant woman had the liberty to choose to have an abortion and there wouldn’t be excessive government restriction on that liberty. The decisions of the Supreme Court safeguarded the right to privacy of the people.
