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:

the answer is : the nut cases won't quit battling and their recurrence of flights will going to continue as before despite the fact that the battles are less hazardous now because of their bills have all of a sudden been blunted.   in the falcon dove diversion, two creatures will drive towards one another to crush one another, among the two one will win and other will swerve. in this way, clearly, the battle will be dependably there between two creatures for the assets or mate.

answer; marvin gaye;