What is the difference between these two claims: claim 1. "you shouldn't lie because lying will always come back to haunt you." claim 2. "you shouldn't lie because lying always causes someone to suffer." claim 1. would be a counsel of prudence, but claim 2. would be a moral claim. claim 1. would be a moral claim, but claim 2. would be a counsel of prudence. claim 1. would be an example of individual ethical egoism, but claim 2. would an example of universal ethical egoism. claim 1. would be an example of universal ethical egoism, but claim 2. would an example of individual ethical egoism.

Claim  1 is a counsel of prudence. It says that the consequence of lying is to the person lying. And that whatever benefit derived from lying is cancelled out later on when the truth comes out.

Claim 2 On the other hand is moral. Because it warns of the general negative effects of lying.

Explanation:

soothing tone) but quickly, the tone changes from a light tone to a grim one. by introducing disturbing word choices that are illogical.make a list of some of levertov’s images of war from both of her poems. how do her wordsaffect you? do you agree with her position on war? write a short response (at least 100 words) and support your answer with personal experience or your studiespoets can change the tone in a poem, and levertov does when the she refers to "delicate man . .whose eyes/are flowers that perceive the stars”. the word choices here are different. theimages began to show feelings of hope/potential. but this mood is interrupted with the dark oppressive words "entrails of still-alive babies" and "carcass-gulleys". levertov continues to switch tones by "the deep intelligence living at peace would have"—one is left with a sense of hope. i can connect with her words that humans can do better things than fight in war. we only have one life so dying in a war would be for no reason. also, i am a christian and in the bible, it says "thou shall not kill", and i strongly believe in that.people respond differently to satire—some like it, others don't get it. in at least 150 words, describe what you think of goines's narrative essay. discuss whether you think his position is convincing.the satire kept people's attention, rather than just rambling. instead of being dead serious, he adds humor to enlighten it. i think he did a good job of proving his point, but convincing people to stray from their own beliefs is hard, and satire can be offensive to that person. overall i think that goines's narrative essay was good because narrative essay create deeper understanding. i also like that the narrative essay is in first-person. the essay was filled with diction and word choice to let you know that the essay is going to be witty yet satirical. his point was to write  

explanation:

i believe that the answer to the question provided above is that the role of campaign committees is to act as a bridge between state and local campaigns.