1: A
2: D...the US was a supporter of Democracy while the Soviet Union supported communism.
3: A is the correct answer. The Soviet Union was not able to keep up and its economy hollowed out.
4. D. At Camp David, Carter tried to forge a peace.
A moral <u>duty</u>, or obligation, is something that ought to be done and that we are bound to do it.
A moral duty is a duty based on morality or ethics. People are not legally bound to study ethical obligations. In different phrases, moral duty has no relation to the law. If a person does not perform these obligations, they can't be punished via the law. ethical obligations depend in particular on someone's sense of right and wrong.
As per the Theory of Legal Obligation, to be legally obligated not to do some action is just for it to be the case that, from the legal point of view, the reasons not to do this action defeat any motives for me to do it.
Kant answers that we do our moral duty whilst our motive is decided by means of a precept recognized via cause in place of the choice for any predicted consequence or emotional feeling which might also reason us to behave the way we do.
Learn more about ethics here brainly.com/question/24606527
#SPJ1
The name of the concept from the text which the ranger is trying to prevent with this prohibition is called:
- <u>A tragedy of the commons</u>
According to the given question, we are asked to state the name of the concept from the text which the ranger is trying to prevent with this prohibition.
As a result of this, we can see that the park ranger is trying to stop visitors from entering the state park and pick up wildflowers because people were <em>picking too much </em>and causing damage.
With this in mind, we can see that he was <em>trying to prevent</em> a tragedy of the commons where <em>one thing is damaged</em> because of lots of usage where there is not enough replacement.
Read more here:
brainly.com/question/19882646
The answer is: They showed that the court has enforced equal rights for a variety of groups that have been discriminated against.
Prior to the civil rights act, the supreme court openly discriminate their decisions against minorities.
To justify their actions, the highlight how the constitution only intended to support 'citizens' while the minorities at that time were not considered to be one. They started to change their opinion regarding this issue after several headlines were made by journalists to address their decisions.
It's a me(me) .........................