Answer and explanation:
Normative ethics is a branch of ethics that reflects on what is morally right and what is wrong. It is through that reflection that principles for human behavior are established.
- <em>"Normative ethics, that part of moral philosophy, or ethics, concerned with criteria of what is morally right and wrong". (Quoted from Britannica, link is the following: https://www.britannica.com/topic/normative-ethics)</em>
In the other hand, metha-ethics is a branch of ethics that studies metaphysical concepts regarding morality and with special emphasis if these moral values are independent of humans.
- <em>"Metaethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words". (Quoted from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, link is the following: https://www.iep.utm.edu/metaethi/) </em>
<em />
The main difference between these two branches of philosophy/ethics is that normative ethics main focus is the morality on a certain action, whereas metaethics focus is morality itself.
<u>Answer</u>: The <u>Legalists </u>philosophers believed that every aspect of life should be governed by strict and impersonal laws.
The Legalism is the third intellectual current that flourished in China before the unification by the Qin Dynasty. The three centuries before the unification were so rich in terms of political thought that is known as “The Golden Age of Chinese Philosophy” with “The Hundred Schools” of thoughts. Other famous schools in this period are Confucianism and Taoism.
The long period of war were times of great chaos and disorder. Profound changes happened during these three centuries – economical, military and social changes. A new administrative approach needed to arise and the Legalists were at the forefront of this innovation.
Legalism is the most practical current of that period. Legalists would not focus on philosophical speculations, such as the evolution of the human nature, morality or divine will. Instead, they focus on how to achieve the goal of unification. Nothing, not even the past, could distract them of this goal. Because of that, they defended that the past doesn’t teach a thing and doesn’t shape the present or the future, but a radical change in the present is the only way to restructure the society. This change could only happen by “the rule of the law”, where individual morality of the ruled and the rulers are not taken into consideration. They believed that every aspect of life should be governed by strict and impersonal laws. Applying those is the radical change that would create a powerful government, able to coerce its subjects and install a rich state and a powerful army. In that scenario, the state has the ultimate authority and such power is given to it by means of military strength.
Answer:
depends on what the red cow is. For example, if the red cow was Bb and dominant black bull is Bb then the percentage of offspring that will be black in color is 75%. If red bulls are bb ( completely recessive) and the black bulls are BB ( completely dominant) then the percentage of black offspring is 100%. Hope this helped. comment if you have questions.
Explanation:
A lot of countries had totalitarian leaders during this time, such as Germany (Hitler), Italy (Mussolini), Japan (Tojo), Spain (Franco), Portugal (Salazar), and possibly many others, too.
