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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
#2 (Neil): Wilson's theory seems accurate to me. Even if the affected group is a minority, they will have a greater interest in changing policy or solving the problem than a larger group with only cursory interest. Strongly affected groups can also frame the issue more effectively by including personal stories, interests, etc. that would be more convincing than stories of practicality that a larger, less interested party might create.
#1 (Jordana)
People call to action when a situation directly concerns them. It is like asking a question. Why do we ask questions? The purpose of a question is to obtain information that specifically concerns an individual. If the question is too general or too broad, then the question is a bad one. Same thing with active participation. Give a person an incentive to care and you will see a “call to arms” (so to speak). People not caring = no action
(Neil#2) I agree with Wilson's distribution theory. I feel that when a smaller majority of people is affected they will act in a more haste manor in order to fix the problem. If something were to affect the majority group it would take three times as long to fix because everyone would look around at each other to fix it instead of doing something themselves.
(neil) #1 the politics behind such a proposal will affect the different groups by the stories that the proposal tells. with my own guess, i would say that they would probably convey the message of it being necessary and good but probably wouldnt talk about a high taxes or some kind of money until they had to.
(#1 Jordana)
The main point to look at when discussing subjective and objective interests is that they are actions or policies that directly affect them. People are more likely to be passive if something is not directing affecting them. However if something is affecting them in a positive or negative way, then they are going to be much more aggressive about it. For example, if you were a parent of a U.S. soldier and their was a policy trying to be passed that would bring all of the soldiers home, the parent who's child is at war would be much more aggressive about the policy, opposed to a parent who's child is not in the military. The same concept goes for objective, because they meet essential human needs and serve the people the best they can, hence people are much more likely to go from passive to aggressive because it is directly affecting them.
-Tyler Ingley
(Neil)#1 The politics behind the idea of national health-care can hold a lot of influence over different peoples perceptions of the issue. If someone is staunchly opposed to the idea of the national government holding a great deal of influence over a private matter like your health and wellbeing they are clearly not going to support nationalized health-care. However if I felt that private insurance companies put too many limitations on who gets covered than I might support nationalized Health-care because it would allow everyone to obtain low cost health care.
(#1 Jordana)
People want what is best for them and there loved ones. So if something directly affects them, they are more likely do work harder or do more about it then something that does not directly affect them. For example, if someone was trying to pass a law to legalize marijuana, people that that used it would be more likely to back up that person that is trying to pass the law. People that do not smoke might vote for it but also might vote against it.
I know its not right to say everyone is selfish, but I feel for the most part, people usually only care about a policy that directly affects them. There are exceptions to this but I feel a person is usually only going to be active if they have an interest in the topic because it relates to them. Tyler's example above is perfect in this situation. Many Americans are fighting to bring the soldiers home from Iraq, but the most active ones in the fight, on the most part, are those affected by the soldiers being gone like their families.
The politics behind the idea of national health-care is a good idea and a bad one. I thnk it would be a good idea because no person should suffer because the lack of money that they have and cannot afford health care. Also this is a bad idea is because who i going to pay for this health care it will be the tax payers this is not a good soluttion.
I do feel that Wilson's distribution-of-effect theory is correct. It makes sense that a large group of people would take longer to act about an incidental issue because they would all look to someone else to fix the problem, or just assume it's taken care of. Whereas in a small group of intensely affected people each person is very passionate and coordinated to resolve the issue.
Jordana (#2)
I think it would be an subjective interest, because that choice directly affects the child. If they are brought into the world in bad circumstances then it affects them more than the parents. If they are adopted they have a better chance of being healthy and successful then if they were brought up in below standard living conditions.
Post a Comment