subject
Social Studies, 31.07.2019 23:30 meme6229

In response to the objection that if individuals obeyed their consciences, they could decide anything, the author argues that the designated decision makers could decide anything, too. this response is: a) irrelevant, because the objector does not imply that people should be forced to disobey their consciences. b) irrelevant, because the author states that responsibility is often an uncomfortable burden. c) relevant, because the objector does not state that politicians are better decision makers than are other individuals. d) relevant, because the author implies that politicians ought to obey their consciences, too.

ansver
Answers: 2

Another question on Social Studies

question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 02:00
Which of the following is one of the innovations that neolithic farmers become more productive? a) plow b) windmill c) tractor d) reaper
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 03:00
•favored a limited national government • opposed a national bank • was supported primarily by farmers, artisans and skilled workers the box above best describes which political party that was formed in the united states in the 1790s? a. democratic-republican b. whig c. populist d. federalist
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 18:30
Isaiah is a citizen of florida. he would like to propose a new amendment to his state's constitution to be voted on in the next election. is isaiah able to do this? no. the u.s. and florida constitutions do not allow citizens to add amendments to the state or federal ballot. no. the florida constitution says citizens may only propose new laws or amendments at local government meetings. yes. the florida and u.s. constitutions allow citizens to add amendments to be voted on in the next federal election. yes. the florida constitution allows citizens to propose amendments to the state constitution to be voted on in the next state election.
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 21:00
Karin bought illegal firearms at a gun show. at her trial, she alleged that she had committed this crime because her boyfriend had threatened to harm her and her two daughters if she did not. her lawyer asked the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that karin had acted freely. instead, the judge told the jury that karin had the burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. who is correct?
Answers: 1
You know the right answer?
In response to the objection that if individuals obeyed their consciences, they could decide anythin...
Questions
question
Mathematics, 15.01.2021 21:30
question
Mathematics, 15.01.2021 21:30
question
Mathematics, 15.01.2021 21:30
question
Biology, 15.01.2021 21:30