Answer:
(1) Hobbes' sovereign is not a party to any contract and has no obligation to protect his citizens' natural rights. (2) Locke has two contracts (between citizens and citizens, and between citizens and the government) in place of Hobbes' single contract (between citizens to obey the sovereign).
Explanation:
Answer:
Commoners
I'm not sure, but this is what I can remember
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.
Answer:
beginning, pushed by Stern, or only or only when he received the ring was he sure he haddone the right thing?Did Oskar ever really realize how much he had done?Okay I already answered this question in the other parts.Obviously we had to use it asthorough evidence for other questions.The things that Schindler saw that helped him understandthe horror of the situation were cruelty used during the liquidation of Krakow, the girl in redwandering among the violence, and seeing her dead, burnt body in the death camp.Oskar wasnot dedicated form the beginning.As I already answered before, he was selfish and only caredabout the prosperity of his business.He paid no mind to the injustice happening around him andwent about happily supporting the Nazi Party.I feel like he barely cared about the hints Sternwas giving him about wanting to help the Jews.But soon after he brushed that off is when heencountered the liquidation of Krakow and the girl in red.Then he began listening to Stern andmaking a begrudging effort.As time went by, he realised what he was actually doing.Savinglives and that’s when he went all in.He spent all of his money on Jews, even though Stern wastelling him how expensive it was going to be.I think Schindler felt like he was doing the rightthing but still doubted himself slightly. Receiving the ring at the end of the film was hisreassurance.That was another aha moment for him because he started realising what kind ofpower he had as a wealthy Nazi.He started pointing out all the luxuries he kept like jewelry,clothes, and his car.I don’t think he realised just how much he’d done.All he could think aboutis how much further he could’ve taken his efforts.Hopefully later in his life he realised thatthousands of descendents would live because of him
