I think there some very wise words it implies that hating or showing negativity towards somebody who is striving and chasing their goals wont get you any closer to your goals it doesnt just apply to me but us humans in a whole.
Answer: A) Hobbes thought people were innately violent.
<u>Further explanation</u>:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan </em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and violent toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
Some of the biggest obstacles to enacting widespread abolition during the republic's early years are the "issue of property rights, economic prosperity, and social mobility."
This is evident in that many whites believed that abolishing slavery would lead to many African Americans owning properties they could have rights through citizenship.
Also, possessing slaves by the whites helped them have an economic advantage, especially the plantation owners in the south.
The idea that having many slaves meant wealth and improved social status among whites made it difficult to accept abolition.
Racism and social discrimination also made the abolition of slavery difficult.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that there are various reasons why the abolition of slavery was difficult during the early years of the United States' formation.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/2299831
3 how were government and religion linked in early. 3. ... Government and religion were linked in early civilizations because when a king came into power, they claim that they have the right to rule from the gods. Thus, they gained religious power as well.
