<u>Yes, if he breaks any of the laws of nature, because these are the moral laws for Hobbes.
</u>
Violating the laws of nature can be not performing one's valid pacts as a ruler or not seeking peace when others want to do so and also not being grateful.
Moral limits that Hobbes places on the ruler are useless, because when we make a pact with the ruler, we give all of our natural rights away to the sovereign.
We cannot question/revolt because they've our rights.
Can only act if we are in danger ⇒ right to self - defense
Ahahahahaha ahahahahahah hahahahah hahahahahhahah
Answer:
Land controlled by distant country
Explanation:I believe
The inference is that the selections from the article that is reflected in the map is that the The Nile is the longest river in the world. It flows northward for nearly 4,200 miles. In ancient times, crops could be grown only along a narrow, 12-mile stretch of land that borders the river.
<h3>What is an inference?</h3>
An inference is the conclusion deduced based on the information given in a literary work.
Here, the inference is that the selections from the article that is reflected in the map is that the The Nile is the longest river in the world. It flows northward for nearly 4,200 miles. In ancient times, crops could be grown only along a narrow, 12-mile stretch of land that borders the river
Learn more about inference on:
brainly.com/question/25280941
#SPJ1
Critical thinking could be used in this example to actively engage with the proposition and propose an alternative or another proposition. Maybe in my own life experience I've known women who drive better than man, so I already have first hand example of how this is a misbelieve, but in order to prove this i have to go a step further.
---
Skepticism should refrain us from making statement from things we don't know yet. The proposition is a generality and thus already tell us that is a prejudice, but moreover when we are talking about things without having knowledge is a good scientific practise to step back and know the argument before speaking.
---
Objectivity is what we should aim when examine datas and proposition. Once we have the data, we could objectevely tell if this proposition respects the truth or not. Some importance should also be given to the motivation and the qualitative data, and not only the raw quantitative data, as reading and analyse only one type could lead to more misunderstading.
---
Curiosity is what we should always bring to the table in everyday matter. In the proposition, we could step back and ask why this is a well consolidates rumour, or why are the reasons behind this saying. Curiosity should be the driven to explain the world in a more complex and rich way comparing to the way other people may live.
---
Other examples of proposition that could be examine by the scientific approach are almost endless. "Women are not good at STEM fields" for example, or "Men generally are more qualified leaders". It is possible to argue that every proposition could be examine in a scientific approach, and maybe we all should do it so.
