Answer and Explanation:
Kant's principle of universalizability suggests that we do what we feel should be generalised or in his words universalised. I'm there words for something to be considered morally valid it should be generally satisfactory and not just apply to one person
On the other hand his principle of humanity suggests that we do those things that treat each human being as though he is the end not the means. In other words, we do not consider another human being to be something that could be used to achieve another thing but the sole purpose or end for which anything is done
The above do have contradictory applications since by generalizing a thing we could still be using a human being and not making him the end in this respect. I believe the best of the two principles however is the humanity principle since by holding this principle dear every human being would treat each other better and the universalizability principle would still apply.
Below are the choices:
A. Tax cuts increase disposable income, which leads to a higher national income and additional consumer spending.
<span>B. Tax cuts reduce government spending, which encourages consumer spending. </span>
<span>C. Tax cuts reduce interest rates, which stimulates consumer spending and borrowing. </span>
<span>D. Tax cuts increase government transfer payments, which leads to a higher national income and additional consumer spending.
</span>
The answer is A.
Also increases government revenue in the long run. Tax cuts increase consumer spending which creates growth, which creates more jobs (tax payers)
Answer/Explanation:
Philosopher John Morreall believes that the first human laughter may have begun as a gesture of shared relief at the passing of danger. And since the relaxation that results from a bout of laughter inhibits the biological fight-or-flight response, laughter may indicate trust in one's companions.
Answer:
I might be wrong but I know the president and the legislature but maybe the also the us Congress and Supreme Court.
