Mostly likely no. He could've done more. If he had done more there probably wouldn't be a need for the civil rights act of 1964.
Answer:
Sunk-cost fallacy.
Explanation:
The sunk-cost fallacy refers to the behavior done by the individuals when they continue such behavior because they already invested resources on it (time, money, effort).
In this example, <u>Les invested money on the megaphone of root beer,</u> he starts drinking it but <u>he becomes full, nevertheless he keeps drinking it </u>(even when his friend tells him he will get sick) <u>because he "bought it and not going to waste one drop of it"</u>
<u>Less continues drinking the root beer even though he's already full because he thinks he already invested money on buying it.</u>
Thus, this is an example of the sunk-cost fallacy.
they had opposing views as to whether or not slavery should be legal in the west.
Answer:
Post Conventional.
Explanation:
In agreement with the Piaget's theory of moral development, Kohlberg developed the theory of the Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development.
<u>This theory categorised the development of morality in three levels namely Pre-conventional, Conventional, and post-conventional morality</u>.
In the given case, Kai is at the post-conventional morality stage.
In this stage, the morality of the individual is based on self-chosen principles. Their morals are grounded on the principles of rights and justice.
The morals of Kai are based on the principle of rights and justice and thus is an example of post-conventional morality.
