Taking into account the statement above: "Explain in your own words how the thesis of causal determinism would seem at odds with the possibility of a person's doing something of his or her own free will. (This will involve explaining what causal determinism is (how it differs from fatalism) and what free will involves, and why the truth of the one would seem to conflict with the possibility of the other.)"
the causes of the event are sufficient to occur in which no other event would occur.
For example: light a match
For the fatalism, the action is to predetermine with no causal antecedents for the action to occur.
Free will involves the condition that you would do otherwise if you had chosen.
And the issue of where they conflict is that you cannot both be determined and free.
For example: the Bridge Breaking.
Hope this helps.
Answer:
A. The belief that the United States should extend from the Atlantic.
Explanation:
Manifest Destiny can be defined as the long-held belief that the United States should extend from the Atlantic.
This ultimately implies that, the Manifest Destiny was a long-held belief around the 19th century, that the United States of America should expand from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean because the people felt it was justified and inevitable.
Answer: The answer is.
C. It was agreed troops would leave the South in exchange for a Hayes victory.
Explanation:
The Compromise of 1877 was an informal agreement between southern Democrats and allies of the Republican Rutherford Hayes to settle the result of the 1876 presidential election and marked the end of the Reconstruction era.
Democrats would accept Rutherford B. Hayes as president, and in return, Republicans would remove the last of the troops from the South, thereby ending Reconstruction.
Answer:
I need the passage in order to answer