Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
The native population of Central America between the years 1540 and 1580 was decimated.
Explanation:
Before the Europeans arrived in Central America, there were numerous thriving native populations. When the Spanish arrived though, this all changed. The Spanish came with few goals, all of which were causing enormous damage to the native populations. Some of the goals of the Spanish were:
- gaining as much gold and silver as possible
- conquering as much territory as possible
- spreading their culture and religion
In order to do these things, the Spanish entered in conflict with the native populations. Having superior weapons, and using the local conflicts, the Spanish managed to kill lot of people in this region. While this was devastating on its own, the diseases that spread from the Spanish on the natives had even worse effect, as they didn't had the immune system to cope with them and experienced mass dying out.
The native populations had dramatic lose in numbers, and with the invasion of the Spanish, and their aggression toward their culture and beliefs resulted in rapid demographic change between 1540 and 1580. Some of the native populations that were affected by this were:
Learn more about the Zapotec brainly.com/question/5773500
#learnwithBrainly
Answer:
The idea that humans evolved in Africa can be traced to Charles Darwin. In his 1871 book The Descent of Man, Darwin speculated that it was “probable” that Africa was the cradle of humans because our two closest living relatives—chimpanzees and gorillas—live there.
Explanation:
US government's authority comes from the consent of the people it governs.Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Answer:
B. Trial by Jury I believe,
Explanation:
