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.
Based on the information given this nonverbal communication is related to Identity management.
Identity management occur when a person tries to manage their identity in a social circle by using a strategy or technique.
A person can tend to use different identity management in order to cope when they are in the midst of people or group of people, such person may tend to smile often so as to make a great first impression about them self to others.
Using identity management may help to build confidence.
Inconclusion this nonverbal communication is related to Identity management.
Learn more about identity management here:brainly.com/question/16216994
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
