The answer is to establish a multicultural society. This is also to foster unity among nations in
the European continent. This way they
would united when it comes to issues affecting the continent and they would
help each other out when the need arises.
Hat you want to ask, is what level in the food chain has the most energy at their disposal. The answer then would be the group at the bottom of the food pyramid. They would be closest to the original solar energy that was trapped by plants. Thus herbivores.... those that feed on plants... or those plankton feeders that feed on algae, should have collectively the most energy available to them.
<span>As one goes "up" the food chain/pyramid, the initial energy of the sun because of the laws of thermodynamics and the "work" of animals, is transformed into heat which is unavailable for "work". Thus the top carnivores have the least pool of energy available to them and thus their populations tend to be small.</span>
You mean what possible advantage could Oligarchy have?
Oligarchy could mean that people in power will have good education and for example won't be manipulated by populists. For example often people choose their representatives based on very little information, and in an oligarchy, where a small portion of a society (the riches and best educated) rules, it could be more likely that the rulers will have the necessary education and preparaation.
I believe the answer is: <span>whether or not schools should be racially integrated
Coleman believed that there is</span><span> the lack of availability of equal educational opportunities for the people that belong in minorities group.
He filed his writing to the government and lead to the creation of many programs that help minorities to obtain public education with the same quality as the others</span>
Kant believed in something he called the <em>categorical imperative. </em>A categorical imperative is a particular moral position that holds in all possible situations - an unshakable moral law, in other words. For imperatives like "do not kill," this seems reasonable, but for others, such as "do not lie," it gets a little hairier.
Imagine a scenario where a murderer comes to your door and asks if you've see your friend around. Moments before, your friend came to you telling you about the murderer, asking if they could hide at your house. Kant would say you're obligated not to lie, so your options are to either shut the door on the murderer (not a great idea) or give away your friend's hiding place (an even worse idea). You can see how a little white lie wouldn't hurt, and would in fact <em>prevent harm from happening</em>. If you were a sworn Kantian, it might play out badly for everyone involved.
To answer your question in light of that, Kantian ethics hold that certain moral standards are universal and impose a duty on <em>all </em>humans. Do not lie. Period.
