The surest way to political success is to offer hope to the voters.
Describe a specific situation in which offering hope to the voters might not lead to political success. Discuss what you think determines when offering hope to the voters will lead to political success and when it will not.
___
In November 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential race of the United States. He campaigned under the mantra of hope and change for a more positive direction in the United States. Obama successfully rallied the support of sectors of society that do not normally participate in politics---that is, youth and minorities. Even those who normally participate in politics were enthralled by his rhetoric and message for change in a society disillusioned by a seemingly never-ending war in Iraq. While his promise of hope helped him gain political victory, the lack of positive change into the middle of his term has left a majority of the populace disillusioned and looking to other potential presidential candidates in 2012. Indeed, a message of hope may draw in voters but the lack of positive change after a while in office will ruin the politician's chance to win another term.
The President is the most visible leader of the United States. However, the separation of powers ensures that other branches of government, including the legislature and the judiciary, provide a check against executive power. While others share power in running the country, the President is viewed by the citizens as being most responsible for the trajectory of their country. For example, economic shifts are attributed directly to the President, although the ups and downs are determined mostly by other factors not under the control of the administration. Furthermore, the President does not only make key decisions in conjunction with other branches of government---he is responsible for uplifting the people and using his charisma to spread high morale and encourage citizens to be patient during difficult economic and political times. All in all, people look to the President as a role model and father figure of our nation.
President Obama campaigned under a promise of hope and attempted to continue his message while in power. However, in the midst of a sluggish recession, 9.2% unemployment rates, and troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, people have become restless and unconvinced about hanging on to hope. Recent times have shown that citizens can hold onto hope for so long. Hope for change must be accompanied by positive change for people to trust their leader and continue re-electing him. While the economic situation may have been caused in part by decisions made under the previous administration, people expect results after two years of a new president. Unfortunately, the morale of the people has been low, especially since many have lost their jobs and more are afraid of losing their jobs. President Obama is now largely seen as a contributor, if not the cause, of a sluggish economy. While he attempts to fulfill his presidential role as the country's motivator, he slowly loses grip of his chances for re-election as the country fails to see positive results.
Indeed, a message of hope may help propel politicians into office. Obama not only promised changes in the political dynamics of the country by being more open to diplomatic efforts abroad---His unique background as an African-American man raised in Hawaii and Indonesia represented a symbolic change in the nation's trajectory. Youth, ethnic minorities and even members of the status quo rallied with him as a way to view a future of an integrated, more peaceful United States. While the promises of hope helped the term begin with a fresh lens and revived atmosphere, the seemingly lack of results in the mid-term threatens to kill the hope held by the nation and open way to new leadership in 2012.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Group v. Individual Work
Progress seldom comes from the deliberations of a group. Rather, progress most often comes from the creative thinking of individuals working alone.
Describe a specific situation in which progress might come from the deliberations of a group rather than the creative thinking of individuals working alone. Discuss what you think determines whether the deliberations of a group or the creative thinking of individuals working alone will result in progress.
___
One of the key goals pursued in the American education system is to socialize young people and give them the skills to be able to work in groups. The United States is more focused on individual---not communal--needs relative to other nations; however, the ability to work well with others is stressed as a way to achieve better results on a personal and professional level. In school, group work is often emphasized as a way for people to share ideas and come up with solutions that would not have been realized had members worked on an individual basis. Whether group work, as opposed to work done by individuals, results in more progress really depends on the quality of the people within the group. Important factors include each member's initiative, talent and ability to work effectively with others.
Sometimes group work will not result in progress. People often have the tendency to not work to their full capacity when other people in their group share responsibility for completing a project. They might assume that other members of the group will complete their share of the project. When most or if all members of the group carry this work mentality, the project will not be a success. In other cases, groups may be composed of members who are not intelligent or capable of thinking creatively. Even if they work well as a group, the results will still be of sub-par quality. On the other hand, a group composed of high quality people with both initiative and intelligence may come up with better results than if those same members would work on an individual basis.
Furthermore, some people work better on their own. Being part of a group may be a distraction to their innate creative forces. Time alone to contemplate and work on problems for these people may result in progress and the best solutions. Working in groups often poses challenges of veering off topic, interrupting thought processes, and certain individuals dominating the discussion and decision-making. Some people, however, work more effectively when around other people. They receive inspiration from hearing several ideas and can focus more on the task on hand with people having the same goals.
Whether group work or individual work results in "progress" really depends on the make-up of the members. Some people tend to be more effective on an individual basis and receive creative inspiration when having not to deal with the distraction of various members. Other people tend to slack off and rely on the initiative of the rest of the group whereas they would have taken more responsibility working alone. The group's progress also depends on the individual capabilities of members; a group composed of creative, hardworking people will most likely yield progress. As the old saying goes, a group is only as strong as its weakest link.
Describe a specific situation in which progress might come from the deliberations of a group rather than the creative thinking of individuals working alone. Discuss what you think determines whether the deliberations of a group or the creative thinking of individuals working alone will result in progress.
___
One of the key goals pursued in the American education system is to socialize young people and give them the skills to be able to work in groups. The United States is more focused on individual---not communal--needs relative to other nations; however, the ability to work well with others is stressed as a way to achieve better results on a personal and professional level. In school, group work is often emphasized as a way for people to share ideas and come up with solutions that would not have been realized had members worked on an individual basis. Whether group work, as opposed to work done by individuals, results in more progress really depends on the quality of the people within the group. Important factors include each member's initiative, talent and ability to work effectively with others.
Sometimes group work will not result in progress. People often have the tendency to not work to their full capacity when other people in their group share responsibility for completing a project. They might assume that other members of the group will complete their share of the project. When most or if all members of the group carry this work mentality, the project will not be a success. In other cases, groups may be composed of members who are not intelligent or capable of thinking creatively. Even if they work well as a group, the results will still be of sub-par quality. On the other hand, a group composed of high quality people with both initiative and intelligence may come up with better results than if those same members would work on an individual basis.
Furthermore, some people work better on their own. Being part of a group may be a distraction to their innate creative forces. Time alone to contemplate and work on problems for these people may result in progress and the best solutions. Working in groups often poses challenges of veering off topic, interrupting thought processes, and certain individuals dominating the discussion and decision-making. Some people, however, work more effectively when around other people. They receive inspiration from hearing several ideas and can focus more on the task on hand with people having the same goals.
Whether group work or individual work results in "progress" really depends on the make-up of the members. Some people tend to be more effective on an individual basis and receive creative inspiration when having not to deal with the distraction of various members. Other people tend to slack off and rely on the initiative of the rest of the group whereas they would have taken more responsibility working alone. The group's progress also depends on the individual capabilities of members; a group composed of creative, hardworking people will most likely yield progress. As the old saying goes, a group is only as strong as its weakest link.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Do the Benefits of a Competitive Society Extend only to those Willing to Compete?
The benefits of a competitive society extend only to those willing to compete.
Describe a specific situation in which someone not willing to compete might benefit in a competitive society. Discuss what you think determines when the benefits of a competitive society extend only to those willing to compete.
_____
Competition is defined as a contest between people or groups of people for resources. Societies adopting capitalistic systems encourage competition as a way to strive for efficient economies. In a competitive society, benefits mainly extend to those who are willing to compete. However, societies that push for an increasing middle class and wish to decrease rates of poverty will adopt mechanisms that extend the benefits of competition to the people as a whole, including those who cannot or are willing not to compete.
In a competitive society, the benefits extend to those willing to compete (or more aptly, the winners) in various ways. They gain more resources in terms of capital and land. They exude a more "prestigious" image in society as top companies and players in the economy. They are able to attract more trust and therefore, more investors. Furthermore, they are able to use their monetary gains to create more products and compete even more in the marketplace. These "winners" also are able to extend their influence beyond their business niche and even delve into politics. That is, they can buy votes, mold policies, and create laws will benefit their business practices.
In a democratic society, a government has an interest in decreasing poverty and increasing the middle class who will gain skills to compete in the marketplace. In order to reduce the gap between the rich and poor, a country such as the United States will implement a progressive tax system that will take a percentage of resources from economically successful individuals and companies. Revenue gained from these taxes help provide free education, welfare benefits, infrastructure, etc. These government programs benefit not only the competitors in society but more so, those who are not willing to or cannot compete. Many programs are designed to provide opportunities for non-competitors to gain the resources to compete. While a nation cannot force people to compete, the promise of a higher quality of life provides an incentive for citizens to pursue higher education and lucrative work.
Indeed, a society that encourages competition will more likely than not have citizens who are driven to create the best products and services. The incentive to make money and be rewarded in multiple other ways (e.g., power and influence) keep businesses and individuals up on their feet with a goal to get on top. Of course, not everyone in a society is willing to compete or has the resources to do so. In the effort to make sure that non-competitors have the chance climb onto the competitive ladder, societies will take a percentage of the competitors' gains to fund various social programs. As is often said, a society is only as strong as its weakest member.
Describe a specific situation in which someone not willing to compete might benefit in a competitive society. Discuss what you think determines when the benefits of a competitive society extend only to those willing to compete.
_____
Competition is defined as a contest between people or groups of people for resources. Societies adopting capitalistic systems encourage competition as a way to strive for efficient economies. In a competitive society, benefits mainly extend to those who are willing to compete. However, societies that push for an increasing middle class and wish to decrease rates of poverty will adopt mechanisms that extend the benefits of competition to the people as a whole, including those who cannot or are willing not to compete.
In a competitive society, the benefits extend to those willing to compete (or more aptly, the winners) in various ways. They gain more resources in terms of capital and land. They exude a more "prestigious" image in society as top companies and players in the economy. They are able to attract more trust and therefore, more investors. Furthermore, they are able to use their monetary gains to create more products and compete even more in the marketplace. These "winners" also are able to extend their influence beyond their business niche and even delve into politics. That is, they can buy votes, mold policies, and create laws will benefit their business practices.
In a democratic society, a government has an interest in decreasing poverty and increasing the middle class who will gain skills to compete in the marketplace. In order to reduce the gap between the rich and poor, a country such as the United States will implement a progressive tax system that will take a percentage of resources from economically successful individuals and companies. Revenue gained from these taxes help provide free education, welfare benefits, infrastructure, etc. These government programs benefit not only the competitors in society but more so, those who are not willing to or cannot compete. Many programs are designed to provide opportunities for non-competitors to gain the resources to compete. While a nation cannot force people to compete, the promise of a higher quality of life provides an incentive for citizens to pursue higher education and lucrative work.
Indeed, a society that encourages competition will more likely than not have citizens who are driven to create the best products and services. The incentive to make money and be rewarded in multiple other ways (e.g., power and influence) keep businesses and individuals up on their feet with a goal to get on top. Of course, not everyone in a society is willing to compete or has the resources to do so. In the effort to make sure that non-competitors have the chance climb onto the competitive ladder, societies will take a percentage of the competitors' gains to fund various social programs. As is often said, a society is only as strong as its weakest member.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Is a Good Education its own Reward?
A good education is its own reward.
Describe a specific situation in which a good education might not be its own reward. Discuss what you think determines when a good education is its own reward and when it is not.
___
In times of a sluggish economy and high unemployment rate, the utility of going to debt to attain a college education has been increasingly questioned. Millions of students have found themselves in a situation where they owe thousands of dollars only to struggle with getting employed upon graduation. Indeed, many have started to doubt whether a good education is its own reward. That is, for what value is an expensive Ivy League degree when one cannot even use it to find high paying jobs these days? Indeed, whether a good education is its own reward is a subjective question that really depends on the perspective and goals of the student.
The idea of what constitutes a good education is relative. Most feel that attending a top-ranked institution is a good education per se due to the quality of classmates and professors. Others feel that a good education can be attained anywhere and depends on how much the student is willing to learn and make of the experience. Whether a good education is its own reward takes into account the purpose of the student in pursuing education. If he views education as a means of developing himself as a person, the education is rewarding in itself. However, if he views education more as a means of getting employed, then the good education will not be valuable per se. That is, the education must lead to the job he has in mind in order for it to be considered rewarding.
Many people, indeed, view attaining a good education as a means to a goal. In a world where most of us must compete in the market economy to survive, education is viewed as a necessity of life. It is the means in which to feed ourselves and our family in a society of scarce resources. It is widely known that those who are less educated, in general (and with exceptions, of course), tend to not make as much money as those who have attained college degrees and beyond from respectable institutions. When a person is focused on mere survival and does not have the luxury to pursue interests outside of work and dabble in the arts, education is more likely to be viewed in utilitarian terms.
On the other hand, someone who does not worry about survival and comes from a comfortable background will more likely view good education as a reward in itself. These privileged people have the means to pursue their passions (whether practical or not) and can learn merely for the sake of learning. They have the resources to further their artistic skills, ponder about philosophy, and plan about saving the world through volunteering and working for NGOs and humanitarian organizations. They do not view their education mostly as a means of providing food on the table but more as something that will round themselves out as developed human beings who can contribute beauty to the world.
Indeed, it is natural to view things in terms of economic utility when society is undergoing hard financial times. Everything, including the pursuit of an education, must be seen through a lens focusing on which actions will get the most bang for the buck. Undoubtedly, a good education offers students intangible benefits which are not recognized immediately---including broadening points of views about the world, affecting interactions with people, etc. However, most people--out of necessity and survival--tend to view their world from a myopic perspective and expect immediate and tangible results from their investments. Education, from this point of view, must lead to the strengthening of skills that will appealing to employers and valuable to landing one's dream job.
Describe a specific situation in which a good education might not be its own reward. Discuss what you think determines when a good education is its own reward and when it is not.
___
In times of a sluggish economy and high unemployment rate, the utility of going to debt to attain a college education has been increasingly questioned. Millions of students have found themselves in a situation where they owe thousands of dollars only to struggle with getting employed upon graduation. Indeed, many have started to doubt whether a good education is its own reward. That is, for what value is an expensive Ivy League degree when one cannot even use it to find high paying jobs these days? Indeed, whether a good education is its own reward is a subjective question that really depends on the perspective and goals of the student.
The idea of what constitutes a good education is relative. Most feel that attending a top-ranked institution is a good education per se due to the quality of classmates and professors. Others feel that a good education can be attained anywhere and depends on how much the student is willing to learn and make of the experience. Whether a good education is its own reward takes into account the purpose of the student in pursuing education. If he views education as a means of developing himself as a person, the education is rewarding in itself. However, if he views education more as a means of getting employed, then the good education will not be valuable per se. That is, the education must lead to the job he has in mind in order for it to be considered rewarding.
Many people, indeed, view attaining a good education as a means to a goal. In a world where most of us must compete in the market economy to survive, education is viewed as a necessity of life. It is the means in which to feed ourselves and our family in a society of scarce resources. It is widely known that those who are less educated, in general (and with exceptions, of course), tend to not make as much money as those who have attained college degrees and beyond from respectable institutions. When a person is focused on mere survival and does not have the luxury to pursue interests outside of work and dabble in the arts, education is more likely to be viewed in utilitarian terms.
On the other hand, someone who does not worry about survival and comes from a comfortable background will more likely view good education as a reward in itself. These privileged people have the means to pursue their passions (whether practical or not) and can learn merely for the sake of learning. They have the resources to further their artistic skills, ponder about philosophy, and plan about saving the world through volunteering and working for NGOs and humanitarian organizations. They do not view their education mostly as a means of providing food on the table but more as something that will round themselves out as developed human beings who can contribute beauty to the world.
Indeed, it is natural to view things in terms of economic utility when society is undergoing hard financial times. Everything, including the pursuit of an education, must be seen through a lens focusing on which actions will get the most bang for the buck. Undoubtedly, a good education offers students intangible benefits which are not recognized immediately---including broadening points of views about the world, affecting interactions with people, etc. However, most people--out of necessity and survival--tend to view their world from a myopic perspective and expect immediate and tangible results from their investments. Education, from this point of view, must lead to the strengthening of skills that will appealing to employers and valuable to landing one's dream job.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Action taken for the good of the greatest number can be Detrimental to the interests of the few
Action taken for the good of the greatest number can sometimes be detrimental to the interests of the few.
Describe a specific situation in which an action taken for the good of the greatest number might not be detrimental to the interests of the few. Discuss what you think determines whether or not action taken for the good of the greatest number will be detrimental to the interests of the few.
___
Democratic systems, such as that of the United States, take into account the will of the majority in taking government action. This is reflected by the practice of majority vote in electing representatives to the legislature. These politicians, in turn, have the responsibility to make decisions based on the interests of the majority of their constituents. However, when action is taken for the good of the greatest number, this can adversely harm the minority. Certain mechanisms, thus, are established in democratic systems to help protect individual and minority interests.
Indeed, people will usually vote for what is good for them. When a majority chooses a certain action, in general, it will best serve society as a whole. Sometimes this is not the case when people are driven by base motives, such as prejudice and fear of what they do not know. For instance, a majority might vote to suppress the rights of homosexuals because they believe that lifestyle is detrimental to their own children's well being, as well as the moral trajectory of the future. This had been realized when Colorado citizens voted in the mid-90s to restrict the rights of homosexuals to participate equally in the political process (eventually struck down by the Supreme Court). While such bills to discriminate against certain people may be for the greater good (well, at least according to majority belief), they can adversely affect minorities rights to participate as full Americans in a free society.
The majority has the potential to "tyrannize" the majority when their collective will is put into action. This has been demonstrated in the past in terms of religious, sex, and race discrimination. However, certain mechanisms in our democracy exist as a check to the majority and serve to protect individual and minority rights. The Bill of Rights of the American Constitution, for instance, is an instrument by which individuals and minorities can use courts to protect their freedoms and rights. The document outlines several freedoms, including those of speech, religion, etc. that are guaranteed for every US citizen. When a person's fundamental rights have been infringed, he or she can turn to the courts to ask for an injunction (put an end to the discrimination) and even claim reparations and damages. These paths to recourse attempt to not only protect the victim but to also discourage others in the future from infringing on those rights.
The United States also has a system of checks and balances where the government is divided into three branches and not one holds power over the other. The legislature, for example, may pass a law (driven by majority interest) that adversely affects a minority. Another branch, the judiciary, can place a check on this law by ruling it unconstitutional. Not only the judiciary serves as a check on other branches--All the branches balance each other out and can use their power to prevent action from another branch.
Indeed, there may be instances where action taken for the good of the majority may not be detrimental to the interests of the minority. This may include, for instance, decisions to provide certain basic services to the population, including education and health care. Not all actions by the majority are driven by base motives and may beneficial to the good of all--even to the minorities who disagreed with the action. It is important, however, to keep in place the mechanism that help protect minorities in cases where majority action infringes on constitutional rights and freedoms.
Describe a specific situation in which an action taken for the good of the greatest number might not be detrimental to the interests of the few. Discuss what you think determines whether or not action taken for the good of the greatest number will be detrimental to the interests of the few.
___
Democratic systems, such as that of the United States, take into account the will of the majority in taking government action. This is reflected by the practice of majority vote in electing representatives to the legislature. These politicians, in turn, have the responsibility to make decisions based on the interests of the majority of their constituents. However, when action is taken for the good of the greatest number, this can adversely harm the minority. Certain mechanisms, thus, are established in democratic systems to help protect individual and minority interests.
Indeed, people will usually vote for what is good for them. When a majority chooses a certain action, in general, it will best serve society as a whole. Sometimes this is not the case when people are driven by base motives, such as prejudice and fear of what they do not know. For instance, a majority might vote to suppress the rights of homosexuals because they believe that lifestyle is detrimental to their own children's well being, as well as the moral trajectory of the future. This had been realized when Colorado citizens voted in the mid-90s to restrict the rights of homosexuals to participate equally in the political process (eventually struck down by the Supreme Court). While such bills to discriminate against certain people may be for the greater good (well, at least according to majority belief), they can adversely affect minorities rights to participate as full Americans in a free society.
The majority has the potential to "tyrannize" the majority when their collective will is put into action. This has been demonstrated in the past in terms of religious, sex, and race discrimination. However, certain mechanisms in our democracy exist as a check to the majority and serve to protect individual and minority rights. The Bill of Rights of the American Constitution, for instance, is an instrument by which individuals and minorities can use courts to protect their freedoms and rights. The document outlines several freedoms, including those of speech, religion, etc. that are guaranteed for every US citizen. When a person's fundamental rights have been infringed, he or she can turn to the courts to ask for an injunction (put an end to the discrimination) and even claim reparations and damages. These paths to recourse attempt to not only protect the victim but to also discourage others in the future from infringing on those rights.
The United States also has a system of checks and balances where the government is divided into three branches and not one holds power over the other. The legislature, for example, may pass a law (driven by majority interest) that adversely affects a minority. Another branch, the judiciary, can place a check on this law by ruling it unconstitutional. Not only the judiciary serves as a check on other branches--All the branches balance each other out and can use their power to prevent action from another branch.
Indeed, there may be instances where action taken for the good of the majority may not be detrimental to the interests of the minority. This may include, for instance, decisions to provide certain basic services to the population, including education and health care. Not all actions by the majority are driven by base motives and may beneficial to the good of all--even to the minorities who disagreed with the action. It is important, however, to keep in place the mechanism that help protect minorities in cases where majority action infringes on constitutional rights and freedoms.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Do Ordinary Citizens, not Heroes, determine the History of a Nation?
Ordinary citizens, not heroes, determine the history of a nation.
Describe a specific situation in which heroes, not ordinary citizens, determine the history of a nation. Discuss what you think determines whether ordinary citizens or heroes determine the history of a nation.
___
In the United States' relatively short history, there have been a few national heroes that stand out in schoolroom textbooks: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. These type of men are representative of the movers and shakers of US history. Granted, there have been many unsung heroes (including women, as well as ordinary citizens) who have contributed significantly to history but have not been recognized in textbooks. However, those who have been touted as our heroes have stood out for the reason that they possessed qualities that are extremely rare--that is, the charisma, extraordinary professional accomplishments, and the ability to convince ordinary citizens to follow and support their cause. In a sense, ordinary citizens help determine the history of a nation but usually with the leadership of a national hero.
Not all significant accomplishments in history can be recorded. There have been many people, including ordinary citizens, that have helped determine the trajectory of the United States. There are a select few, however, whose accomplishments become known by every school child and are commemorated during certain days of the years. These heroes not only pushed forward significant changes during their time--they also continue to inspire future leaders to make a difference in the greater community. Martin Luther King Jr., for example, was the most influential leader during the Civil Rights movement whose actions and causes opened educational and professional doors for non-white citizens. He continues to have an important presence in millions of people's lives today by exemplifying hope and change for a more equal society. Heroes, such as Martin Luther King Jr., not only make significant changes during their time but also continue to move the nation towards a certain direction beyond their lifetimes.
Of course, ordinary citizens also have significant roles in national history. They have been the ones deployed overseas to risk their lives during war. They work everyday to move the nation's economy. They raise families that contribute (positively and negatively) to the direction of our nation. However, they do not determine the history of a nation per se. It is the national leaders or heroes that have the ability to rally together ordinary citizens in the hundreds of thousands to support their cause and move history forward.
The nation's heroes have historically (and for the most part) been people belonging to the privileged classes and backgrounds. For example, most of the leaders that we deem as heroes have been our presidents---white men with high education and influential families. Only a handful of non-whites, such as Martin Luther King Jr., have been widely recognized. However, as our nation becomes more diverse and opens opportunities to minorities, more people with different backgrounds will be recognized for their groundbreaking accomplishments and uncanny ability to influence thousands of other people to support their cause.
Describe a specific situation in which heroes, not ordinary citizens, determine the history of a nation. Discuss what you think determines whether ordinary citizens or heroes determine the history of a nation.
___
In the United States' relatively short history, there have been a few national heroes that stand out in schoolroom textbooks: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. These type of men are representative of the movers and shakers of US history. Granted, there have been many unsung heroes (including women, as well as ordinary citizens) who have contributed significantly to history but have not been recognized in textbooks. However, those who have been touted as our heroes have stood out for the reason that they possessed qualities that are extremely rare--that is, the charisma, extraordinary professional accomplishments, and the ability to convince ordinary citizens to follow and support their cause. In a sense, ordinary citizens help determine the history of a nation but usually with the leadership of a national hero.
Not all significant accomplishments in history can be recorded. There have been many people, including ordinary citizens, that have helped determine the trajectory of the United States. There are a select few, however, whose accomplishments become known by every school child and are commemorated during certain days of the years. These heroes not only pushed forward significant changes during their time--they also continue to inspire future leaders to make a difference in the greater community. Martin Luther King Jr., for example, was the most influential leader during the Civil Rights movement whose actions and causes opened educational and professional doors for non-white citizens. He continues to have an important presence in millions of people's lives today by exemplifying hope and change for a more equal society. Heroes, such as Martin Luther King Jr., not only make significant changes during their time but also continue to move the nation towards a certain direction beyond their lifetimes.
Of course, ordinary citizens also have significant roles in national history. They have been the ones deployed overseas to risk their lives during war. They work everyday to move the nation's economy. They raise families that contribute (positively and negatively) to the direction of our nation. However, they do not determine the history of a nation per se. It is the national leaders or heroes that have the ability to rally together ordinary citizens in the hundreds of thousands to support their cause and move history forward.
The nation's heroes have historically (and for the most part) been people belonging to the privileged classes and backgrounds. For example, most of the leaders that we deem as heroes have been our presidents---white men with high education and influential families. Only a handful of non-whites, such as Martin Luther King Jr., have been widely recognized. However, as our nation becomes more diverse and opens opportunities to minorities, more people with different backgrounds will be recognized for their groundbreaking accomplishments and uncanny ability to influence thousands of other people to support their cause.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Social Justice can occur only when People Accept the Equality of Others?
Social justice can occur only when people accept the equality of others.
Describe a specific situation in which social justice might occur without people accepting the equality of others. Discuss what you think determines whether or not social justice can occur only when people accept the equality of others.
___
The concept of social justice involves creating a society based on principles of equality and solidarity. It is the idea that values human rights, as well as the sanctity of human life. A society that strives for social justice believes that that all people, no matter their circumstances at birth, must have full access to the tools that allow them to develop socially and personally. These tools may include, among others, free access to education and health care, as well as property and income redistribution. For social justice to occur, people must accept the equality of others.
Social justice is centered around the idea that all people are equal---not just under the law---but in all aspects. One's intelligence, appearance or family background does not influence one's inherent value. In a society based on social justice, all people have the potential to contribute equally in society; therefore, each person is entitled to the same resources (as far as education, health, etc.) in order to reach this potential. To ensure that all people have access to these resources, the state must establish systems of income redistribution, as well as free public services. A society cannot rely on the magnanimity of people with money to voluntarily share their resources with others, so state must impose a system that gives the poor chances to move up the social ladder.
However, it may be impossible to create a functioning society on the sole basis of social justice because of efficiency concerns. When resources are distributed from the "haves" to the "have nots", this might create a lack of incentive for entrepreneurial and innovative types to create and work at their optimal level. The "have nots" may develop a sense of entitlement to welfare benefits and also not work to their potential. Granted, while social justice is not necessarily socialism, the idea of providing the "have nots" with opportunities to rise above their circumstances is key.
While social justice aspires to the idea of all humans as inherently equal, the harsh reality is that humans are not born equal. Some are born with abilities and features that allow them to survive in a world of scarce resources. Others are not so lucky and must struggle intensely to make it in the world. However, one could treat all people as equals under the law. Some may argue that social justice does not entail redistributing resources from the rich to the poor. Perhaps social justice can be achieved by assuring that a society treats people equally under its law. An ironic point is that treating people equally under the law means that income distribution practices and free health care for the "have nots" would be in question. Indeed, the concept of "all humans as equals" is a relative phrase that means different things to different people when considering the definition of social justice.
Describe a specific situation in which social justice might occur without people accepting the equality of others. Discuss what you think determines whether or not social justice can occur only when people accept the equality of others.
___
The concept of social justice involves creating a society based on principles of equality and solidarity. It is the idea that values human rights, as well as the sanctity of human life. A society that strives for social justice believes that that all people, no matter their circumstances at birth, must have full access to the tools that allow them to develop socially and personally. These tools may include, among others, free access to education and health care, as well as property and income redistribution. For social justice to occur, people must accept the equality of others.
Social justice is centered around the idea that all people are equal---not just under the law---but in all aspects. One's intelligence, appearance or family background does not influence one's inherent value. In a society based on social justice, all people have the potential to contribute equally in society; therefore, each person is entitled to the same resources (as far as education, health, etc.) in order to reach this potential. To ensure that all people have access to these resources, the state must establish systems of income redistribution, as well as free public services. A society cannot rely on the magnanimity of people with money to voluntarily share their resources with others, so state must impose a system that gives the poor chances to move up the social ladder.
However, it may be impossible to create a functioning society on the sole basis of social justice because of efficiency concerns. When resources are distributed from the "haves" to the "have nots", this might create a lack of incentive for entrepreneurial and innovative types to create and work at their optimal level. The "have nots" may develop a sense of entitlement to welfare benefits and also not work to their potential. Granted, while social justice is not necessarily socialism, the idea of providing the "have nots" with opportunities to rise above their circumstances is key.
While social justice aspires to the idea of all humans as inherently equal, the harsh reality is that humans are not born equal. Some are born with abilities and features that allow them to survive in a world of scarce resources. Others are not so lucky and must struggle intensely to make it in the world. However, one could treat all people as equals under the law. Some may argue that social justice does not entail redistributing resources from the rich to the poor. Perhaps social justice can be achieved by assuring that a society treats people equally under its law. An ironic point is that treating people equally under the law means that income distribution practices and free health care for the "have nots" would be in question. Indeed, the concept of "all humans as equals" is a relative phrase that means different things to different people when considering the definition of social justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)