By physical geography, let's assume that that includes natural resources, as "physical geography" deals with natural features and processes. The physical geography of the Eastern Hemisphere influenced the spread of people and animals to ideal locations, leading to the growth of cities and civilizations with a huge impact on the world today. Additionally, the aforementioned natural resources, borne of varying physical geography, are consumed and traded or moved throughout the world for mass benefit.
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:
Theodora, a 6th-century byzantine empress married to emperor Justinian i, is remembered for being one of the most powerful women in byzantine history. she used her power and influence to promote religious and social policies hat were important to her. she was one of the first rulers to recognized the rights of women.
Answer:
Symbolic interactionism
Explanation:
According to my research on studies conducted by various sociologists, I can say that based on the information provided within the question the best theoretical approach for this situation would most likely be Symbolic interactionism. This is an approach that focuses on explaining social behavior in terms of how people interact with each other via symbols.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
The correct answer for the question that is being presented above is this one: "a. intent." Discovering the intent involves the evaluation of the audience and purpose associated with the evidence. If you really want to know the purpose of the reason of a person in doing a thing, then you need to evaluate him or her.
