Answer:
A Secondary Appraisal
Explanation:
According to Lazarus, primary assessment is a cognitive process through which individuals check the risk involved in a given stress situation. In the secondary assessment people analyze what resources are available and options for dealing with the problem. Boyd's thoughts represent the secondary assessment because he is reflecting on how he will deal with cancer and solve all the problems that cancer will cause.
Answer:
it is better to make important or risky decisions after carefully thinking them through
HOPE IT HELPS :)
PLEASE MARK IT THE BRAINLIEST!
Answer:
The CORRECT answer is Ancient Greece was more reflective of the philosophy of direct democracy.
Explanation:
I got it correct and got a 100% on my quiz!
Hopefully this helps!
Answer Information:
Class: United States Government
Name of Quiz: Types of Democracies
Assignment Number: 1.2.5
Answer:
D) Ancient Greece was more reflective of the philosophy of direct democracy
Explanation:
Feudalism in the Holy Roman Empire was a politico-economic policy of relationships among liege lords and enfeoffed vassals that made the base of the social structure within the Holy Roman Empire during the High Middle Ages. Greek cities set up democracies, most following the Athenian model, but none are as well documented as Athens. It was a policy of direct democracy, in which participating citizens voted quickly on law and executive bills.
Answer:
greek religion is about there religion and greek mythology is about what they did
Explanation:
Answer:
Greek religion is not the same as Greek mythology, which is concerned with traditional tales, though the two are closely interlinked. Curiously, for a people so religiously minded, the Greeks had no word for religion itself; the nearest terms were eusebeia (“piety”) and threskeia (“cult”).
Explanation:
What does Cassie most likely feel in the excerpt?
a.alarmed and angry
b.proud and satisfied
c.sad and lonely
d.hurt and helpless
Answer:
a
Explanation:
Answer: Nathanson says that there is no way to respect the dignity of both people’s right
Explanation:
Killing is not an easy thing to do, but there is a great difference between self-defense and outright killing, but either ways, someone will definitely die. Nathanson says that there is no way to respect the dignity of both people’s right.
Nathanson argues that killing in self-defense is compatible with the respect for the dignity of human life by upholding the right to bodily autonomy and moral considerations. Killing in such circumstances is seen as a response to an immediate threat to one's life and not as an act of aggression.
The explanation of how Nathanson argues that killing in self defense is compatible with respect for the dignity of human life lies in the concept of the sanctity of human life, the right to bodily autonomy, and moral and rational considerations. According to Nathanson, killing in self-defense is morally justified when one's life is in immediate threat or danger. In such cases, the dignity of human life is respected as the act of self-defense is carried out in preservation of one's own life.
Nathanson suggests that every individual has a right to bodily autonomy – the right of individuals to determine what happens to their bodies. When the life of an individual is threatened, they have the right to defend themselves, which may at times involve killing as a last resort. This act of killing is seen as a response to an immediate danger and not as an act of aggression.
Moreover, Nathanson's argument can also be connected to moral reasoning. He doesn't argue that killing is generally acceptable, but rather, only under very specific circumstances such as self-defense where it's seen as the lesser of two evils. Thus, recognizing the sanctity and dignity of human life while also acknowledging situations where self-defense is necessary involves a complex interplay of moral, ethical and personal considerations according to Nathanson.
#SPJ11