by Jordana Bradburn
While reading the chapter on interests I really picked up on the idea of subjective and objective interests. I think that when our interests are subjective we become really passionate about the topic at hand because we are directly affected. Whether we are correct or not in believing our interests truly do affect us. I found this to be a really important chapter because this is what connects the average Joe to the political world. No matter who you are, you have interests that are subjective to you. Even as a teenager you find policies that affect you and you take a stand on them. I feel that sometimes though it is almost danger for the general public to have so many subjective interests. Even though we feel that certain policies affect us directly we aren’t always one hundred percent aware of the true history of these particular policies as well as how they actually do affect us.
Making interests in the polis I think is important as well. With National Healthcare we see that the story or politics behind the issue can be the same, but the interests of different groups show through differently. Take doctors, they hear that prices will have ceilings and be regulated, this is something that they don’t want to happen so they take an active stance to make sure that this doesn’t happen. National Healthcare isn’t in the best interests of the doctors. However, when people who are of lower class hear that prices on health services will be regulated they take an active stance to try and make this happen.
The chapter also made me think on how people make interest subjective to them. Stone’s reading said subjective interests are those that people BELIEVE to affect them. We formulate opinions on different things not always based on how it actual affects us but how we believe it to affect us because when asked your stance on a policy people expect you to come back with something more than “Oh it doesn’t affect me, I don’t have an opinion.” Topics such as abortion and capital punishment aren’t exactly issues that directly affect us all but, I’m sure anyone you talk to takes a stance on those topics as if it is an actual subjective interest in their life. I strongly believe that when the general public becomes overwhelmed with topics they believe to affect them they let the ones that actually do pass them by. People seem to be more interested in huge national issues that may never have any reach to them instead of those little things about your city that appear on our voting ballots. I know for my personal self that I educate myself more on the things that I feel I should know more about because that’s what society calls for then being
educated in the ones I really need to be even though they are smaller and may only pertain to the people that live in the same city or state.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Questions from Jordana and Neil
Jordana
1. How do you think objective and subjective interests influence peoples
automatic translation from their passive situation into an active stance?
2. Do you think giving your child up for adoption would have an inherent
effect which from Stone's reading would be an objective interest or would
it be considered a subjective interest which would directly effect the
child?
Neil
1. How do the politics behind the proposal of nationally provided
healthcare shape and influence different groups perceptions on the issue?
2. Do you feel that Wilson's distribution-of-effect theory is correct? Why
or why not. It states: the interests of small minorities intensely
affected by something will dominate the interests of large majorities only
incidentally affected by something.
1. How do you think objective and subjective interests influence peoples
automatic translation from their passive situation into an active stance?
2. Do you think giving your child up for adoption would have an inherent
effect which from Stone's reading would be an objective interest or would
it be considered a subjective interest which would directly effect the
child?
Neil
1. How do the politics behind the proposal of nationally provided
healthcare shape and influence different groups perceptions on the issue?
2. Do you feel that Wilson's distribution-of-effect theory is correct? Why
or why not. It states: the interests of small minorities intensely
affected by something will dominate the interests of large majorities only
incidentally affected by something.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Who is to Blame for the Cause the Government or the People?
By: Tyler Ingley
When considering who is to blame for the cause of something I believe that the higher order or the government is to be held responsible for whatever cause happens whether it be positive or negative. They are the ones who make the causes whether they are unguided or purposeful. Stone stated that whenever an action is committed there is an outcome and it may be positive or negative. Since the government makes these decisions then they are to blame for the outcome or be praised if it is a positive outcome. Stone discussed for types of causes and I will elaborate on each of them to prove how the government or the higher authorities are responsible for the causes. The first is mechanical cause. It is defined as things that have no will of their own but are designed, programmed, or trained by humans to produce certain consequences. For example, the media often displays advertisements on unhealthy foods. When we as a society watch television many people buy into this and it causes us to go out and by the unhealthy foods which ultimately leads to malnutrition. The higher authority here is the people who allow these advertisements to be aired, therefore they are to blame. Mechanical causes try to brainwash people and the government try's to in a sense brainwash its voters into buying into their policies. The second cause are intentional causes. These are defined as when causes that lay the blame directly at someone's feet. Either someone acted in order to bring about the consequences, or someone acted even though they knew what the outcome was going to be. This cause again proves that government is solely responsible for the causes that happen because they have the power to intentionally put into effect what they want, whether the outcome is positive or negative is 100% up to them, not the society. The third type of causes are inadvertent causes. At first they may not seem like the government is responsible for them because they often are unforeseen side effects in a policy, however it is due to their carelessness that the side effect came to be so again they are responsible for what has occurred. A well constructed example of this is a policy that at first was well intended but the consequences came about later and ultimately the policy turned negative and the government is blamed again. The fourth and final cause is accidental. The reason I chose to do this one last is because it is the only cause that has the least amount of blame on either the government or the people. Accidental causes are natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Stone states that politically this is a good place to retreat if one is
being charged with responsibility because accidental causes are that of fate. No one can control fate, only God and most of the time it is not a wise decision to include God when you are introducing policies or are running for a campaign, simply because the idea of religion and government mixed together is something that is fading away more and more. Anyways, back to the reason the government can still be held responsible for accidental causes is because they are responsible for the aftermath of the tragedy. Many people blamed the government for not acting quick enough when Hurricane Katrina hit, later reports confirmed that the government knew how big the storm was and should have evacuated the entire area, but did not. In this example they are to blame for the cause, even though Hurricane Katrina was an accident. A question that came to mind when reading about all the causes is what "caused" the economy to be in the state that it is currently in. Was it intentional cause? Or was it a complete accident? Or even inadvertant? In my opinion I think that it was a matter of avoidable ignorance. I think they could have taken precautions to avoid it like, stopping the funding for Iraq way sooner. It has cost us a ridiculous amount of money which has put into a massive amount of debt. The housing market is another reason as well, shady loan sharks gave out loans that at first seemed like a viable option for American families to buy their first homes, but later were screwed because of it. In the end our government is solely responsible for the causes that are implemented into our society, that is why we vote to put them in office, because we expect them to perform so that our country stays on top.
When considering who is to blame for the cause of something I believe that the higher order or the government is to be held responsible for whatever cause happens whether it be positive or negative. They are the ones who make the causes whether they are unguided or purposeful. Stone stated that whenever an action is committed there is an outcome and it may be positive or negative. Since the government makes these decisions then they are to blame for the outcome or be praised if it is a positive outcome. Stone discussed for types of causes and I will elaborate on each of them to prove how the government or the higher authorities are responsible for the causes. The first is mechanical cause. It is defined as things that have no will of their own but are designed, programmed, or trained by humans to produce certain consequences. For example, the media often displays advertisements on unhealthy foods. When we as a society watch television many people buy into this and it causes us to go out and by the unhealthy foods which ultimately leads to malnutrition. The higher authority here is the people who allow these advertisements to be aired, therefore they are to blame. Mechanical causes try to brainwash people and the government try's to in a sense brainwash its voters into buying into their policies. The second cause are intentional causes. These are defined as when causes that lay the blame directly at someone's feet. Either someone acted in order to bring about the consequences, or someone acted even though they knew what the outcome was going to be. This cause again proves that government is solely responsible for the causes that happen because they have the power to intentionally put into effect what they want, whether the outcome is positive or negative is 100% up to them, not the society. The third type of causes are inadvertent causes. At first they may not seem like the government is responsible for them because they often are unforeseen side effects in a policy, however it is due to their carelessness that the side effect came to be so again they are responsible for what has occurred. A well constructed example of this is a policy that at first was well intended but the consequences came about later and ultimately the policy turned negative and the government is blamed again. The fourth and final cause is accidental. The reason I chose to do this one last is because it is the only cause that has the least amount of blame on either the government or the people. Accidental causes are natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. Stone states that politically this is a good place to retreat if one is
being charged with responsibility because accidental causes are that of fate. No one can control fate, only God and most of the time it is not a wise decision to include God when you are introducing policies or are running for a campaign, simply because the idea of religion and government mixed together is something that is fading away more and more. Anyways, back to the reason the government can still be held responsible for accidental causes is because they are responsible for the aftermath of the tragedy. Many people blamed the government for not acting quick enough when Hurricane Katrina hit, later reports confirmed that the government knew how big the storm was and should have evacuated the entire area, but did not. In this example they are to blame for the cause, even though Hurricane Katrina was an accident. A question that came to mind when reading about all the causes is what "caused" the economy to be in the state that it is currently in. Was it intentional cause? Or was it a complete accident? Or even inadvertant? In my opinion I think that it was a matter of avoidable ignorance. I think they could have taken precautions to avoid it like, stopping the funding for Iraq way sooner. It has cost us a ridiculous amount of money which has put into a massive amount of debt. The housing market is another reason as well, shady loan sharks gave out loans that at first seemed like a viable option for American families to buy their first homes, but later were screwed because of it. In the end our government is solely responsible for the causes that are implemented into our society, that is why we vote to put them in office, because we expect them to perform so that our country stays on top.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Natural vs. Social
by Stephen Chafi
There are two view points for interpreting the world these days. The natural world and the social world. Both of these worlds are different but still result in something happening. The results can be as small as an argument between two people or as big as a hurricane. The point being that even if these two worlds are different they both effect our world and how we live in it. But which of the two effect us more in the current time we live in?
In any view points of the world, things happen that is out of our control. The natural world view point focuses on occurrences to be undirected or out of our control. In the Stone book, they use the example of a cold front hitting a warm front. A storm occurs and can destroy everything it touches. It could destroy people homes and lives, but there is no willful intention of that. No human made that storm and focused it on the town to destroy it. It was a natural occurrences out of anybodies control. The natural world is made of fate, chance, and unforeseen accidents. Some my choose to believe that there is a higher being that does all of this for a reason, but the fact remains that it is still out of our hands. As a community we accept the fact that stuff is going to happen that is beyond our control and do our best to work around it.
Now on the other side of the spectrum; we have the social world. The social world is directly influenced by human will. This world is not based of chance, instead it is based off control and intent. To understand it completely, one must understand that you must be able to identify the motives of a group or person and link them with there actions to understand what they want. Because of this we can influence people many ways. This includes flattering, bribing, threatening, helping, fighting, and loving. People use these things to change the course of events so they can benefit our needs more. In the social world, there is no chance or random accidents; there is only what we do to influence people.
So the question comes up, which of the two effects us more in the current world. I believe that both co-exist. There are things in this world that we cant control like hurricanes. But think about after the hurricanes, we choose to send more money to those states hit hard and help rebuild what they lost. We use the social view to solve the things we can not control. With out one, I do not think that the other would exist. We as people are just going to have to live with what we can not control and then take advantage of the stuff we can control, and hope that it all works out for the best.
There are two view points for interpreting the world these days. The natural world and the social world. Both of these worlds are different but still result in something happening. The results can be as small as an argument between two people or as big as a hurricane. The point being that even if these two worlds are different they both effect our world and how we live in it. But which of the two effect us more in the current time we live in?
In any view points of the world, things happen that is out of our control. The natural world view point focuses on occurrences to be undirected or out of our control. In the Stone book, they use the example of a cold front hitting a warm front. A storm occurs and can destroy everything it touches. It could destroy people homes and lives, but there is no willful intention of that. No human made that storm and focused it on the town to destroy it. It was a natural occurrences out of anybodies control. The natural world is made of fate, chance, and unforeseen accidents. Some my choose to believe that there is a higher being that does all of this for a reason, but the fact remains that it is still out of our hands. As a community we accept the fact that stuff is going to happen that is beyond our control and do our best to work around it.
Now on the other side of the spectrum; we have the social world. The social world is directly influenced by human will. This world is not based of chance, instead it is based off control and intent. To understand it completely, one must understand that you must be able to identify the motives of a group or person and link them with there actions to understand what they want. Because of this we can influence people many ways. This includes flattering, bribing, threatening, helping, fighting, and loving. People use these things to change the course of events so they can benefit our needs more. In the social world, there is no chance or random accidents; there is only what we do to influence people.
So the question comes up, which of the two effects us more in the current world. I believe that both co-exist. There are things in this world that we cant control like hurricanes. But think about after the hurricanes, we choose to send more money to those states hit hard and help rebuild what they lost. We use the social view to solve the things we can not control. With out one, I do not think that the other would exist. We as people are just going to have to live with what we can not control and then take advantage of the stuff we can control, and hope that it all works out for the best.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Questions for Tomorrow, March 18
Stephen Chafi
1) Who's fault is it? If a drunk driver gets in a car wreck and injures or kills someone, who's fault is it. Does the responsibility get placed on the person who choose to drink and drive or does the blame get placed on the company that made the drink?
2) Why do people that are victimized by a problem not seek political change. Is it because they do not see the problem as changeable or do they not have the necessary resources to change this problem?
Tyler Ingley
1) Why is it that people prefer casual stories over complex stories? Have we been programmed in our democracy to accept the casual stories of politicians because they "seem" good at the time and they are not full of details?
2) Stone stated "We look for causes not only to understand how the world works but to assign responsibility for causes", he used the example of cigarette smokers to look deeper as to why society blames either the tobacco companies for all of the smoke related deaths or the smokers themselves for the deaths. Do you feel that the cause of deaths are the producers or consumers? Explain why the side you chose is the cause.
1) Who's fault is it? If a drunk driver gets in a car wreck and injures or kills someone, who's fault is it. Does the responsibility get placed on the person who choose to drink and drive or does the blame get placed on the company that made the drink?
2) Why do people that are victimized by a problem not seek political change. Is it because they do not see the problem as changeable or do they not have the necessary resources to change this problem?
Tyler Ingley
1) Why is it that people prefer casual stories over complex stories? Have we been programmed in our democracy to accept the casual stories of politicians because they "seem" good at the time and they are not full of details?
2) Stone stated "We look for causes not only to understand how the world works but to assign responsibility for causes", he used the example of cigarette smokers to look deeper as to why society blames either the tobacco companies for all of the smoke related deaths or the smokers themselves for the deaths. Do you feel that the cause of deaths are the producers or consumers? Explain why the side you chose is the cause.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)