The correct answer should be<span> a. To achieve moral perfection
He believed that if everyone behaved according to that plan, the world would be a great place, and that everyone should strive to become such a person. He followed the plan since he was 20, up until his death at 79.</span>
        
             
        
        
        
Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
 
        
             
        
        
        
Which revolution are you talking about
        
             
        
        
        
Answer:
C) State Representation in Congress
Explanation:
The Virginia Plan advocated for two legislative houses of which membership would be based on population. The New Jersey Plan advocated for one legislative house of which membership would be equal for all states.
- Hope this helps.