The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options provided, we can say that Kant meant with that quote was "we cannot imagine a world where everyone makes deceitful promises, because the practice of promising presupposes trust and none would trust anyone in a world where everyone makes deceitful promises."
Emmanuel Kant, one of the most important philosophers of our times, considered that people should be very honest to have a good life and never compromise their word in vain because that would generate that other people would never trust this individual. For Kant, people had moral values and they should never try to cheat or manipulate other people. Respect was one of the most appreciated values for him.
Answer:
This was a way to make the Senate resistant to public pressure.
Explanation:
The framers of the constitution and pioneers of the American government divided the senate into three so that they can be up for reelection in two, four, and six years intervals. Their intention in allowing senators to remain in the house for slightly longer terms in office was to make the Senate a stabilized body who could take responsibility for their decisions, and who could make decisions that were independent of public opinion and pressure.
The Senate was also formed to provide the needed adjustments to the legislation made by the House of Representatives.
Maybe you should try contacting his/her parents and seeing whats going on or unfortunatly he could've broke up with you without actually telling you he broke up with you.
Answer:
The correct answer to the following question will be Option D (Fundamental attribution error).
Explanation:
A common method of prejudice throughout cognitive psychology seems to be the fundamental attribution mistake or error.
- Fundamentally, it includes putting a greater emphasis on administrative traits of appearance to clarify the actions, someone, in a particular circumstance, instead of always worrying about actual physical subjective.
- Humans appear to over-emphasize qualitative even persona-based interpretations of actions found in others often under-emphasizing situational interpretations.
Therefore, the given statement illustrates the above error.
