Answer:
Aristotle.
Explanation:
In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle provided the first systematic study of ethics in the history of the Western world. This work is based on notes from his lectures at the Lyceum, consisting of ten books. Ethics, roughly described, is about good living given that it's aim is to create good living. Ethics should describe how one could best live. Aristotle continues the discussion about this subject that had previously started with Socrates and Plato.
Answer:
Isolates
Isolates are completely detached. They don't care about their leaders, know anything about them or respond to them in any obvious way. Their alienation is, nevertheless, of consequence. By default – by knowing nothing and doing nothing – isolates strengthen leaders who already have the upper hand.
Bystanders
Bystanders observe but do not participate. They make a deliberate decision to stand aside, disengaging from their leaders and the group. This withdrawal is, in effect, a declaration of neutrality that amounts to tacit support for the status quo.
Participants
Participants are in some way engaged. They clearly favor or oppose their leaders and the groups and organizations of which they are a part. In either case, they care enough to invest some of what they have (time, for example) to have an impact.
Activists
Activists feel strongly about their leaders, and they act accordingly. They are eager, energetic and engaged. Because they are heavily invested in people and process, they work hard on behalf of their leaders or to undermine and even unseat them.
Diehards
Diehards are prepared to die for their cause, whether that is an individual, an idea or both. Diehards are deeply devoted to their leaders or, in contrast, ready to remove them from positions of power, authority and influence by any means necessary. Diehards are defined by their dedication, including their willingness to risk life and limb. Being a diehard is all-consuming. It is who you are. It determines what you do.
Explanation:
USA refused , because the Senate don't ratify this document
Correct to eliminate split infinitive must be encouraged to at the very least consider some fresh possibilities.
<h3>What exactly does "split infinitive" mean?</h3>
Split infinitives are grammatical constructions in which the "to" and "infinitive" halves of what is more often referred to as the to-infinitive in modern linguistics are separated by an adverb or adverbial phrase. The word to and the simple form of a verb make up an infinitive (e.g. to go and to read). As a result of the adverbs "suddenly" and "quickly," the infinitives "to go" and "to read" are split (or broken apart), making them examples of split infinitives. One need not worry, though, as it is typically viewed as a writing mistake because another term can divide two portions and it appears disorganized. Unless one wishes to finish their work sooner than anticipated or has extra time on hand, revision is not necessary in this situation. However, one might spend some quality time reviewing these types of sections until every component fits together naturally without any forced words or paragraphs.
To know more about split infinitive, click here:
brainly.com/question/8990731
#SPJ4
<span>Federalists,
The anti-federalists opposed the Gov.</span>
