Thomas Hobbes believed that people were inherently suspicious of one another and in competition with one another. This led him to propose that government should have supreme authority over people in order to maintain security and a stable society.
John Locke argued that people were born as blank slates, open to learning all things by experience. Ultimately this meant Locke viewed human beings in a mostly positive way, and so his approach to government was to keep the people empowered to establish and regulate their own governments for the sake of building good societies.
Further explanation:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan</em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and evil toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government</em> in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
The similarity between the cultures of traditional China and traditional Japan is that both valued cultural sophistication.
<h3>What is a
cultural sophistication?</h3>
This refers to the refining of their cultural practices for different purpose and this extends to their dancing, costumes etc
Hence, the main similarity between the cultures of traditional China and traditional Japan is that both valued cultural sophistication.
Therefore, the Option A is correct.
Read more about cultural sophistication
<em>brainly.com/question/6186963</em>
#SPJ1
Then it is no longer a democracy, it is closer to a dictatorship. The democracy will fall
Answer:
War in Europe began in the late summer of 1914 and from the outset the United States clung to a policy of strict neutrality. Despite the loss of American life as a result of the War on the Atlantic Ocean (such as the sinking of the Lusitania in May 1915), President Wilson constantly argued that the United States should remain out of the conflict. However, on 6 April 1917 the United States Congress declared war on Germany. By June 1917 the first American troops, 14,000 men of the American Expeditionary Force, arrived in France. By the end of the War in 1918 a million American troops were in Europe. So why and how did the United States go from a policy of neutrality to a fully blown engagement with the war in Europe?
Q: Why did the United States choose to stay neutral in 1914?
When war broke out in Europe in 1914 President Wilson declared that the United States would follow a strict policy of neutrality. This was a product of a longstanding idea at the heart of American foreign policy that the United States would not entangle itself with alliances with other nations. Put simply the United States did not concern itself with events and alliances in Europe and thus stayed out of the war. Wilson was firmly opposed to war, and believed that the key aim was to ensure peace, not only for the United States but across the world. To that end he sent a leading aide, Colonel House, to Europe in the autumn of 1914 in an attempt to broker a peace deal.
Q: Why didn’t German attacks on American shipping force Wilson to act?
If the war had been solely fought on land it was likely that the United States could have avoided the entanglement it feared. However, a key part of the war was the battle on the Atlantic. Here, shipping lanes were patrolled and attacked by German U-Boats in an attempt to cut supply lines to Britain. Following its policy of neutrality the United States initially attempted to trade with both Britain and its allies as well as with Germany. However, in practice the United States was only able to trade with Britain and its allies, and all the goods sold (the value of which amounted to $1.2 billion by 1916) had to be transported by ship across the Atlantic. The German habit of attacking shipping meant that American registered ships were sunk, and United States citizens were killed (128 died when the Lusitania was sunk). Wilson came under pressure to act after the sinking of the Lusitania and after protests from him, the Germans agreed to refrain from attacking passenger vessels. By January 1917 however, German military commanders argued that only an unrestricted blockade of the Atlantic would achieve victory and once more targeted all shipping. The decision undoubtedly edged the United States closer to war in 1917.
Explanation:
read this and u will understand.
