What is the difference between these two claims: Claim 1. "You shouldn't lie because lying will always come back to haunt you."
Claim 2. "You shouldn't lie because lying always causes someone to suffer." Claim 1. would be a counsel of prudence, but claim 2. would be a moral claim. Claim 1. would be a moral claim, but claim 2. would be a counsel of prudence. Claim 1. would be an example of individual ethical egoism, but claim 2. would an example of universal ethical egoism. Claim 1. would be an example of universal ethical egoism, but claim 2. would an example of individual ethical egoism.
Claim 1 is a counsel of prudence. It says that the consequence of lying is to the person lying. And that whatever benefit derived from lying is cancelled out later on when the truth comes out.
Claim 2 On the other hand is moral. Because it warns of the general negative effects of lying.
Proactive policing can be described as preventing crime, while reactive policing involves responding to a crime that is taking place right now or that has already taken place. ... Reactive policing, on the other hand, involves reacting to something that has already happened.
A large reason for this is because theyre such big cities they also have a lot of job openings and oppetunities. Typically people wont drive an hour for work so they move as close to their job is as possible. im not sure about the 2nd question
In 1781 British General Cornwallis surrenders to General George Washington because Cornwallis only took 8,000 troops because they were expecting for the British Navy to sent their troops for help but they never arrived.
