That which cannot be moved. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. That which cannot be moved.

Answer: Immobile

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->That which cannot be moved.....

QA->Who drafted the Pakistan resolution in 1940 which was moved by Fazlul Haq?....

QA->The year which Swadeshabhimani newspaper office was moved to Thiruvananthapuram....

QA->A resolution asking complete independence (“Poorna Swaraj") for India was moved at which session of Indian National Congress?....

QA->Which country moved to the top of the FIFA world ranking list for the first time on November 7, 2015 after overtaking Argentina and world champions Germany following their victories in last month"s European qualifiers?....

MCQ-> Analyse the following passage and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow. One key element of Kantian ethics is the idea that the moral worth of any action relies entirely on the motivation of the agent: human behaviour cannot be said good or bad in light of the consequences it generates, but only with regards to what moved the agent to act in that particular way. Kant introduces the key concept of duty to clarify the rationale underpinning of his moral theory, by analysing different types of motivation. First of all individuals commit actions that arc really undertaken for the sake of duty itself, which is, done because the agent thinks they arc the right thing to do. No consideration of purpose of the action matters, but only whether the action respects a universal moral law. Another form of action (motivation) originates from immediate inclination: Every one has some inclinations, such as to preserve one's life, or to preserve honour. These are also duties that have worth in their own sake.But acting according to the maxim that these inclinations might suggests - such as taking care of one's own health - lacks for Kant true moral worth. For example, a charitable person who donates some goods to poor people might do it following her inclination to help the others - that is. because she enjoys helping the others. Kant does not consider it as moral motivation, even if the action is in conformity with duty. The person acting from duty would in fact donate to the other because she recognizes that helping the others is her moral obligation. Final type of motivation suggested by Kant include actions that can be done in conformity with duty, yet are not done from duty, but rather as a mean to some further end. In order to illustrate this type of motivation, Kant provides the following example. A shopkeeper who does not overcharge the inexperienced customer and treats all customers in the same way certainly is doing the right thing - that is, acts in conformity with duty - but we cannot say for sure that he is acting in this way because he is moved by the basic principles of honesty: "it is his advantage that requires it". Moreover, we cannot say that he is moved by an immediate inclination toward his customers, since he gives no preference to one with respect to another. Therefore, concludes Kant, "his action was done neither from duty nor from immediate inclination but merely for purposes of self - interest".Consider the following examples: i) Red Cross volunteer who donates blood every year to thank an anonymous donor who saved the life of his mother some time back ii) A voluntary organization which conducts regular blood donation camps to improve its legitimacy As per the passage, correct statement(s) related to the above examples would be: I. The source of motivation for both examples is same II. Individuals may commit actions for reasons beyond duty III. Both examples illustrate the concept of moral worth...

MCQ->A boy was misdirected from his way while returning to his home from his school. In order to reach his home, he first moved 3 km in south direction and then turned to his left and moved 2 km in straight direction on the road leading to the east. From there, he moved to his left and walked 3 km. After this. he again turned to his left and moved 1 km. Finally he reached his home. The home of the boy was in which direction from his school ?...

MCQ-> The second plan to have to examine is that of giving to each person what she deserves. Many people, especially those who are comfortably off, think this is what happens at present: that the industrious and sober and thrifty are never in want, and that poverty is due to idleness, improvidence, drinking, betting, dishonesty, and bad character generally. They can point to the fact that a labour whose character is bad finds it more difficult to get employment than one whose character is good; that a farmer or country gentleman who gambles and bets heavily, and mortgages his land to live wastefully and extravagantly, is soon reduced to poverty; and that a man of business who is lazy and does not attend to it becomes bankrupt. But this proves nothing that you cannot eat your cake and have it too; it does not prove that your share of the cake was a fair one. It shows that certain vices make us rich. People who are hard, grasping, selfish, cruel, and always ready to take advantage of their neighbours, become very rich if they are clever enough not to overreach themselves. On the other hand, people who are generous, public spirited, friendly, and not always thinking of the main chance, stay poor when they are born poor unless they have extraordinary talents. Also as things are today, some are born poor and others are born with silver spoons in their mouths: that is to say, they are divided into rich and poor before they are old enough to have any character at all. The notion that our present system distributes wealth according to merit, even roughly, may be dismissed at once as ridiculous. Everyone can see that it generally has the contrary effect; it makes a few idle people very rich, and a great many hardworking people very poor.On this, intelligent Lady, your first thought may be that if wealth is not distributed according to merit, it ought to be; and that we should at once set to work to alter our laws so that in future the good people shall be rich in proportion to their goodness and the bad people poor in proportion to their badness. There are several objections to this; but the very first one settles the question for good and all. It is, that the proposal is impossible and impractical. How are you going to measure anyone's merit in money? Choose any pair of human beings you like, male or female, and see whether you can decide how much each of them should have on her or his merits. If you live in the country, take the village blacksmith and the village clergyman, or the village washerwoman and the village schoolmistress, to begin with. At present, the clergyman often gets less pay than the blacksmith; it is only in some villages he gets more. But never mind what they get at present: you are trying whether you can set up a new order of things in which each will get what he deserves. You need not fix a sum of money for them: all you have to do is to settle the proportion between them. Is the blacksmith to have as much as the clergyman? Or twice as much as the clergyman? Or half as much as the clergyman? Or how much more or less? It is no use saying that one ought to have more the other less; you must be prepared to say exactly how much more or less in calculable proportion.Well, think it out. The clergyman has had a college education; but that is not any merit on his part: he owns it to his father; so you cannot allow him anything for that. But through it he is able to read the New Testament in Greek; so that he can do something the blacksmith cannot do. On the other hand, the blacksmith can make a horse-shoe, which the parson cannot. How many verses of the Greek Testament are worth one horse-shoe? You have only to ask the silly question to see that nobody can answer it.Since measuring their merits is no use, why not try to measure their faults? Suppose the blacksmith swears a good deal, and gets drunk occasionally! Everybody in the village knows this; but the parson has to keep his faults to himself. His wife knows them; but she will not tell you what they are if she knows that you intend to cut off some of his pay for them. You know that as he is only a mortal human being, he must have some faults; but you cannot find them out. However, suppose he has some faults he is a snob; that he cares more for sport and fashionable society than for religion! Does that make him as bad as the blacksmith, or twice as bad, or twice and quarter as bad, or only half as bad? In other words, if the blacksmith is to have a shilling, is the parson to have six pence, or five pence and one-third, or two shillings? Clearly these are fools' questions: the moment they bring us down from moral generalities to business particulars it becomes plain to every sensible person that no relation can be established between human qualities, good or bad, and sums of money, large or small.It may seem scandalous that a prize-fighter, for hitting another prize-fighter so hard at Wembley that he fell down and could not rise within ten seconds, received the same sum that was paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury for acting as Primate of the Church of England for nine months; but none of those who cry out against the scandal can express any better in money the difference between the two. Not one of the persons who think that the prize-fighter should get less than the Archbishop can say how much less. What the prize- fighter got for his six or seven months' boxing would pay a judge's salary for two years; and we all agree that nothing could be more ridiculous, and that any system of distributing wealth which leads to such absurdities must be wrong. But to suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of archbishop of three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prize-fighter would be sillier still. You can find out how many candles are worth a pound of butter in the market on any particular day; but when you try to estimate the worth of human souls the utmost you can say is that they are all of equal value before the throne of God:And that will not help you in the least to settle how much money they should have. You must simply give it up, and admit that distributing money according to merit is beyond mortal measurement and judgement.Which of the following is not a vice attributed to the poor by the rich?
...

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the question.Once upon a time in a village, there lived six blind men. In spite of their blindness they had managed to educate themselves Seeking to expand their knowledge they decided to visit a zoo and try out their skills in recognizing animals by their touch. The first animal they came across, as soon as they entered the zoo was an elephant.As the first man approched the elephant, the elephant waved its trunk, and the man felt something brush past him. Managing to hold on to it, and found something long and moving. He jumped back in alarm, shouting "Move away ! This is a snake !" Meanwhile ,the second man had moved closer, and walked right near its legs. As the man touched the thick, cylindrical¬shaped legs, he called out "Do not worry. These are just four trees here. There is acertainly no snake !" The third man was curious hearing the other two, and moved forward. As he walked towards the elephant, he felt his hand touch one of the tusks. Feeling the smooth, sharp ivory tusk, the man cried out " Be careful ! There is a sharp spear here". The fourth man cautiously walked up behind the elephant and felt its swinging tail. "It's just a rope ! he said. The fifth man had meanwhile reached out and was touching the huge ears of the animal. "I think all of you have lost your sense of touch !" he said. "This is nothing but a huge fan!" The sixth man did not want to be left out. As he walked towards the elephant, he bumped into the massive body, and he exclaimed, "Hey ! This is just a huge mud wall ! There is no animal at all !" All six of them were convinced that they were right, and began arguing amongst themselves.The zoo keeper returned to the elephant and saw each of them shouting at the top of their voice ! "Quiet" he shouted out and when they had calmed down, he asked, "Why are all of you shouting and arguing in this manner ?" They replied, "sir, as you can see, we all are blind. We came here to expand our knowledge. We sensed an animal here and tried to get an idea of its appearance by feeling it. However, we are not able to arrive at a consensus over its appearance, and hence are arguing. Can you please help us and tell us which of us is right" ?The zoo keeper laughed before answering "My dear men, each of you has touched just one portion of the animal. The animal you see is neither a snake, nor any of other things you have mentioned. The animal in front on you is an elephant !" As the men, bowed their head ashamed of the scence they had created, the zoo keeper said, "My dear men, this is a huge animal and luckily, it is tame. It stood by calmly as each of you touched it. You are extremely lucky that it stayed calm even during your argument, for if it had got angry, it would have trampled all of you to death !" He continued further , "It is also important to learn to share and pool your knowledge .Instead of fighting amongst yourselves, if you had tried to put all your observations together, you might have had an idea of the animal as a whole ! Also, when you cannot see the entire truth, it is better to go to someone who does know the complete truth, rather than guess about small parts of it. Such half¬knowledge is not only useless, but also dangerous. If you had come directly to me, I would have helped you identify all the animals without putting you in danger !" The six men apologized to the zoo keeper, and assured him that they had learnt their lesson. From now on they would seek true knowledge from qualified people, and would seek true knowledge from qualified people, and would also try to work together as a team so that they could learn moreWhich part of the elephant resembled a big fan ?
...

MCQ-> Governments looking for easy popularity have frequently been tempted into announcing giveaways of all sorts; free electricity, virtually free water, subsidized food, cloth at half price, and so on. The subsidy culture has gone to extremes. The richest farmers in the country get subsidized fertilizers. University education, typically accessed by the wealthier sections, is charged at a fraction of cost. Postal services are subsidized, and so are railway services. Bus fares cannot be raised to economical levels because there will be violent protest, so bus travel is subsidized too. In the past, price control on a variety of items, from steel to cement, meant that industrial consumer of these items got them at less than actual cost, while the losses of the public sector companies that produced them were borne by the taxpayer! A study done a few years ago, came to the conclusion that subsidies in the Indian economy total as much as 14.5 per cent of gross domestic product. At today's level, that would work out to about 1,50,000 crore. And who pay the bill? The theoryand the Political fiction on the basis of I which it is sold to unsuspecting votersis that subsidies go the poor. and are paid for by the rich. The fact is that most subsidies go the 'rich' (defined in the Indian context as those who are above the poverty line), and much of the tab goes indirectly to the poor. Because the hefty subsidy bill results in fiscal deficits, which in turn push up rates of inflationwhich, as everyone knows, hits the poor the hardest of all. That is why taxmen call inflation the most regressive form of taxation. The entire subsidy system is built on the thesis that people cannot help themselves, therefore governments must do so. That people cannot afford to pay for variety of goods and services, and therefore the government must step in. This thesis has been applied not just in the poor countries but in the rich ones as well; hence the birth of the welfare state in the west, and an almost Utopian social security system; free medical care, food aid, old age security, et.al. But with the passage of time, most of the wealthy nations have discovered that their economies cannot sustain this social safety net, which in fact reduces the desire among people to pay their own way, and takes away some of the incentive to work, in short, the bill was unaffordable, and their societies were simply not willing to pay. To the regret of many, but because of the laws of economies are harsh, most Western societies have been busy pruning the welfare bill. In India, the lessons of this experience over several decades, and in many countriesdo not seem to have been learnt. Or they are simply ignored in the pursuit of immediate votes. People who are promised cheap food or clothing do not in most cases look beyond the gift horsesto the question of who picks up the tab. The uproar over higher petrol, diesel and cooking gas prices ignored this basic question; if the user of cooking gas does not want to pay for its cost, who should pay? Diesel in the country is subsidised, and if the user of cooking gas does not want to pay for its full cost, who does he or she think should pay the balance of the cost? It is a simple question, nevertheless if remains unasked. The Deva Gowda government has shown some courage in biting the bullet when it comes to the price of petroleum products. But it has been bitten by much bigger subsidy bug. It wants to offer food at half its cost to everyone below the poverty line, supposedly estimated at some 380 million people. What will be the cost? And of course, who will pick up the tab? The Andhra Pradesh Government has been bankrupted by selling rice as 2 per kg. Should the Central Government be bankrupted too, before facing up to the question of what is affordable and what is not? Already, India is perennially short of power because the subsidy on electricity has bankrupted most electricity boards, and made private investment wary unless it gets all manner of state guarantees. Delhi's subsidised bus fares have bankrupted the Delhi Transport Corporation, whose buses have slowly disappeared from the capital's streets. It is easy to be soft and sentimental, by looking at programmes that will be popular. After all, who does not like a free lunch? But the evidence is surely mounting that the lunch isn't free at all. Somebody is paying the bill. And if you want to know who, take at the country's poor economic performance over the years. Which of the following should not be subsidised over the years ?
...