Reciprocity occurs when one state recognizes the dental license of an individual from another state.
<h3>Dental license </h3>
In the U.S., licensure requirements are set by the state board of dentistry, also known as the board of dental examiners or licensing board. Although requirements vary from state to state, all dental licensure applicants must meet three basic requirements: educational, written examination, and clinical examination.
<h3>How long does it take to get an Illinois dental license?</h3>
In establishing rules, the Department shall require a minimum of 48 hours of study in approved courses for dentists during each 3-year licensing period and a minimum of 36 hours of study in approved courses for dental hygienists during each 3-year licensing period.
To learn more about dental license visit the link
brainly.com/question/27813937
#SPJ4
? I don’t understand your question here.
The most accurate conclusion that can be made about the correlational research study is "None of the above can be concluded."
<h3>What is a Research?</h3>
This refers to the systematic study that is done to establish facts and reach new conclusions.
Hence, we can see that The most accurate conclusion that can be made about the correlational research study is "None of the above can be concluded."
Read more about research here:
brainly.com/question/25257437
#SPJ1
Answer:
For many centuries, natural law was recognized as a type of higher law that spelled out universal truths for the moral ordering of society based on a rational understanding of human nature. As a higher moral law, it gave citizens a standard for determining if the written laws and customs of their nation or any other nation were just or unjust, right or wrong, humane or inhumane. Today, natural law is not discussed very much, at least not explicitly. When mentioned at all, it is usually rejected as dangerous because it undermines existing laws or as intolerant because it is contrary to “multiculturalism,” which requires the non-judgmental acceptance of other cultures.
This negative view of natural law can be traced to Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), whose writings are largely devoted to showing the anarchy and civil wars caused by appeals to natural and divine laws above the will of the sovereign. Hobbes rejected traditional higher law doctrines and encouraged people to accept the established laws and customs of their nations, even if they seemed oppressive, for the sake of civil peace and security. His critique has been a leading cause of the demise of natural law and the acceptance of positive law as the only reliable guide for political authority.
One may be equally surprised to learn, however, that many people today embrace a different (and seemingly contradictory) view of natural law, and this too is traceable to Thomas Hobbes. For example, when conscientious people are confronted with violations of human rights—as in religious theocracies that violate women’s rights or in countries that allow sweatshops to trample on worker’s rights—they feel compelled to protest the injustice of those practices and to change them for the better. The protesters usually deny that they are following natural law, but they obviously are asserting a belief in universal moral truths that are grounded in human nature—in this case, the natural equality of human beings that underlies human rights. This understanding of higher law originates with Hobbes because he was largely responsible for transforming classical natural law into modern natural rights, thereby beginning the “human rights revolution” in thinking on natural law. How is it possible for Hobbes and his followers to embrace seemingly contradictory views of natural law, rejecting one form as intolerant, self-righteous, and anarchical, while embracing another form as the universal ideal of social justice? Let us turn to Hobbes for an answer to this puzzle, and, in so doing, uncover the sources of our modern conceptions of law, rights, and justice.
