Answer:
Thoreau sees a moral distinction between failing to prevent an injustice and actually causing an injustice. Consider an example. Thoreau argues that the United States' invasion of Mexico is immoral and that Americans who support the government with their person (as soldiers) or property (through taxes) are complicit in that injustice. He would further say that a person should go to jail rather than be responsible for that invasion. However, imagine a case in which another country was invading Mexico, but that by offering himself up as some sort of hostage and allowing himself to be imprisoned, he could stop that invasion. Thoreau would argue that while it would be perfectly moral to go to jail in this case, he would not be required to do so. As a human being, he may legitimately have other ends or goals that require him to be out of jail. It is not his job to promote the best world possible by any means necessary. All that can be asked of a person is that he not dirty his own hands with injustice. Once this requirement is fulfilled, each individual should decide for himself what to do with his life. This distinction is rooted in Thoreau's belief that individuals should look inward for how they should live their lives. A person's primary duty is to be true to himself--to act with integrity and to pursue personal moral goals.
Explanation:
Im sorry if its long
no its not weird to sit alone at lunch because maybe sometimes people want to be alone and think ignore the j e r k s and be yourself
This statement can be concluded:
2. Both the speech and poem are equal when it comes to the use of pathos.
Explanation:
It is rather subjective how we can value the two uses of pathos as both the statement and the poem employ it very beautifully and effectively in their address and get the point across.
one is about the death of soldiers in the civil war while the other is about the death of the President Lincoln.
Both of these show emotion and vulnerability and thus are important to be seen as having equal level of pathos even as the poem has more dramatic styles and virtues as it is a poem so it is supped to.
Answer:
okay
Explanation:
i would practice criminal law, and i would try to relax my client and make them feel comfortable with the environment. maybe then they would tell me if they actual committed the crime or not. i would also try and comfort them with the situation they are in as i bet they're already stressed out and worried, especially if they didnt do the crime. also, earning a high salary is only the outcome of defending justice. if you just want to get a salary then your most likely not gonna do a great job, speaking since u just want to get it over with to get the check. but if u actually value defending justice u will do a good job and most likely get a better, bigger salary then the other person who doesnt. so defending justice is more important. (・∀・)