This topic contains a solution. Click here to go to the answer

Author Question: What has nothing to do with the enjoyment of life, for Kant? a. The majesty of duty b. The ... (Read 78 times)

Ebrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
What has nothing to do with the enjoyment of life, for Kant?
 
  a. The majesty of duty
  b. The shackles of wisdom
  c. The devotion of God
  d. The love of self

Question 2

Sociopaths lack
 
  a. wisdom
  b. health
  c. conscience
  d. rationality



Related Topics

Need homework help now?

Ask unlimited questions for free

Ask a Question
Marked as best answer by a Subject Expert

rosiehomeworddo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 306
Answer to Question 1

ANS: A

Answer to Question 2

ANS: C




Ebrown

  • Member
  • Posts: 567
Reply 2 on: Jul 14, 2018
Great answer, keep it coming :)


cam1229

  • Member
  • Posts: 329
Reply 3 on: Yesterday
Gracias!

 

Did you know?

In ancient Rome, many of the richer people in the population had lead-induced gout. The reason for this is unclear. Lead poisoning has also been linked to madness.

Did you know?

Your skin wrinkles if you stay in the bathtub a long time because the outermost layer of skin (which consists of dead keratin) swells when it absorbs water. It is tightly attached to the skin below it, so it compensates for the increased area by wrinkling. This happens to the hands and feet because they have the thickest layer of dead keratin cells.

Did you know?

Many supplement containers do not even contain what their labels say. There are many documented reports of products containing much less, or more, that what is listed on their labels. They may also contain undisclosed prescription drugs and even contaminants.

Did you know?

Barbituric acid, the base material of barbiturates, was first synthesized in 1863 by Adolph von Bayer. His company later went on to synthesize aspirin for the first time, and Bayer aspirin is still a popular brand today.

Did you know?

Although the Roman numeral for the number 4 has always been taught to have been "IV," according to historians, the ancient Romans probably used "IIII" most of the time. This is partially backed up by the fact that early grandfather clocks displayed IIII for the number 4 instead of IV. Early clockmakers apparently thought that the IIII balanced out the VIII (used for the number 8) on the clock face and that it just looked better.

For a complete list of videos, visit our video library