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.
Answer:
not not no ur so bad iits easy
Explanation:
<u>1)</u><u> Rule of commitment.</u>
<u />
<h3><u>What is the rule of commitment?</u></h3>
Marketers and salespeople frequently exploit the rule of commitment, a form of social norm, to persuade customers to make purchases. This convention states that when we publicly commit to something, we usually feel obligated to follow through with it.
The strength of commitment may occasionally cause you to persevere with choices that are not always in your best interests (such as making an expensive purchase), but this propensity isn't always a detrimental factor in our conduct. You could even discover that you can use the commitment rule to motivate others to change their negative behavior.
Learn more about the rule of commitment with the help of the given link:
brainly.com/question/9311503?referrer=searchResults
#SPJ4
<u />
Major threats to pioneer life and limb came from accidents, exhaustion, and disease. Crossing rivers were probably the most dangerous thing pioneers did. Swollen rivers could tip over and drown both people and oxen. Such accidents could cause the loss of life and most or all of valuable supplies.
This statement is valid for Maria
c. She has an internal set of standards regarding right and wrong behavior, and she feels guilty when she violates those standards.
Explanation:
Maria is a person that social cognitive theorists would describe as a self-regulating person when it comes to her moral behavior.
This means that morally she has a set of standards that are entirely her own and she behaves according to them and does not expect any outside influence to tell her how she must behave in front of the people.
Her behavior is dictated by her own set of rules failing which she would feel a real sense of guilt too
