Final answer:
The difference in length between Marcus's arms could be due to the thickening of the bone in his right arm from a previous fracture.
Explanation:
As an adult, Marcus noticed that his right arm appeared longer than his left arm. This could be explained by the fact that during childhood, Marcus broke his left arm and had it placed in a cast. When a bone is fractured, it goes through a healing process called bone remodeling, where the bone tissue is repaired and reshaped. Sometimes, during this process, the bone can become thicker. In Marcus's case, the fracture in his left arm might have resulted in the bone healing thicker and therefore appearing shorter compared to his right arm which did not undergo the same remodeling process.
Therefore, the difference in length between Marcus's arms could be due to the thickening of the bone in his right arm, rather than the actual length of the bone. It's important to note that this is just a possible explanation and additional factors could also contribute to the perceived difference in arm length.
Does the equator cross the northern or southern part of South America
The most significant part of a person’s self concept
If a diabolical villain threatened to blow up a city unless you kill one innocent person, what would a kantian say you have to do?
A Kantian would say that even in the face of severe consequences, one must not kill an innocent person as it violates Kant's categorical imperative and the perfect duty not to harm others, which should be upheld at all times.
Explanation:Kantian Ethics and Perfect Duties
From a Kantian ethical perspective, the dilemma presented involves a conflict between perfect duties: the duty not to harm or kill an innocent person and the duty to prevent harm to others. Kant's categorical imperative demands that one acts only according to maxims that could be universalized without contradiction. Thus, according to Kantian ethics, one should never commit an act that couldn't be willed to become a universal law, such as killing an innocent person; even under dire circumstances such as threats to a larger group. Kantian moral theory holds that moral rules are absolute, meaning that some actions are always wrong, regardless of their consequences.
In the scenario where a diabolical villain threatens to blow up a city unless an innocent person is killed, a Kantian would argue against killing the innocent person. This is because Kant believed that taking an innocent life cannot be moral under any circumstances. It is a perfect duty to not kill, one that must be upheld at all times. To do otherwise would contradict the very essence of moral law as per Kant's philosophy. Moreover, such an act would set a precedent that would erode trust and civilized life, as it would make the respect for an individual's right to life conditional and negotiable.
Ultimately, from a Kantian viewpoint, even in the face of severe consequences, committing an immoral act, such as killing an innocent person, cannot be justified. Moral actions must remain consistent with the imperative of universalizability, and no circumstances can justify the infringement of a perfect duty.
Stuart hall sees media as ___________ where various forces struggle to shape popular notions about social reality.
How does self-control theory explain crime?
Answer:
The self-control theory states that one with no self-control is more likely to commit a crime. People with low self-control want instant gratification causing them not to think about the consequences of their actions. They only think about satisfying their needs instantly, causing them to act recklessly and be drawn to dangerous or risk-taking behaviors. Thus, causing them to be more likely to be criminally inclined.
Re-word it and you should be fine.