Answer: some things may not be done no matter what ( the consequences)
Explanation:Anscombe's view (and Kant's below) is a form of Non-Consequentialism. a. Some things may not be done no matter what (the consequences).
Answer:
Pros :
You had the possibility to help people rather directly as there were more little towns.
People were much more receptive to your preaches. You had a rather large freedom of speech especially if you were a bishop. (This is not in middle ages but the priest that lead Louis XIV burial mass said in his preach “Only God is great !” (Implicitly saying that the king was a standart man that was confronted to the same necessity than other people).
You had access to a good education (and to some boos, what was rather scarce before the XVIth century) hence, you were one of the few litterate persons allowing you to teach people how to read and write. You could have an intellectual influence and a social influence by teaching the local lord’s children how to read and sometimes give political pieces of advice to the local lord.
You could yourself be a local lord as bishop / head of an abbey.
You could be the head of a local charity (origin of hospitals).
In France you didn’t pay taxes. On the contrary, you received one tenth of peasants’ crops.
If you were an eminent bishop / cardinal, or if you were the Pope you could have tremendous spiritual and political power.
You could get married while being a catholic priest (before the XIIth century, before 1123 precisely).
Cons :
You could be obliged to condemn people because they didn’t believe in God - help the Inquisition.
You had to help / discuss with people that were sentenced to death what should have been very difficult on a psychological point of view.
You couldn’t get married after the XIIth century (after 1123).
You could be seen with envy considering your privileges.
Explanation:
found it online
Answer:
In October 539 bce, the greatest city of the ancient world fell to the Persians. In the Bible (e.g., Ezra 1:1–4), Cyrus is famous for freeing the Jewish captives in Babylonia and allowing them to return to their homeland. Cyrus was also tolerant toward the Babylonians and others.
Answer:
The repeal of the commitment to Missouri affected Kansas because it allowed for an open conflict between abolitionists and slaveholders.
Explanation:
The Missouri Compromise, also called the 1820 Commitments, was an agreement passed in 1820 between pro-slavery and pro-abolitionist groups in the United States of America, primarily involving the regulation of slave labor in the western territories.
In 1850, the Missouri Compromise goes into crisis. California wanted to enter the Union as a free state, but it was located south of the parallel of 36 ° 30 '- that is, between the slave states. The war seemed close, but then a new agreement emerged: California was admitted with a free state, the other free states were forced to repatriate fugitive slaves, and New Mexico and Utah gained bylaws of territories and not states, that is, without own laws against or in favor of slavery.
The definitive crisis of the Missouri Compromise occurred in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska bill, authored by Douglas Douglas of Ilhinóis. Douglas proposed the Organization of Kansas and Nebraska as territories with freedom of choice, by popular decision, between being or not slave state. And as I encouraged the occupation, Douglas suggested that the railroad, still under construction, cut off the two territories. Congress passed the propositions, nullifying the Missouri Compromise. The confrontation between free states and slave states became then open and declared.
Answer:
It was difficult to get the necessary papers to leave Germany, and US immigration visas were difficult to obtain. The process could take years.
Explanation:
