Public Opinion and Black Power Movement Questions

“What role does contestation play in politics according to connolly?”

“Describe Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolent direct action, citing at least two of the philosophy’s main premises. Then explain King’s response to at least one critique of his position made by the Black Power movement” and responding to an idea by stating what you find interesting or right or if you don’t agree. thr paragraphs are short.

REPLY TO

For question 3, you are gonnna read a classmate response to the professor’s question and answer if you basically agree with it or what you think is interesting or not true. The professor’s question: “Augustine claims that all human beings share a single origin: Adam, the so-called first man. If everyone descends from the same person, we are all in some sense family–all related. On the basis of this claim about human origins, Augustine then argues that God’s intention when he created man was for humans always to get along–to achieve “unity in plurality” (Book XII, ch. 28, p. 508). Your task is to explain how this view of human nature is likely to influence how people who accept the view think about politics and the sorts of actions they are likely to endorse. See the instructions box, below, for some questions to help you think through and organize your response” Classmates response: “If a person believes that they are all descendents of one single being then they would be inclined to see all other humans as a type of family and would fight for equality and safety for all humans. A belief that all other people are a family would mean that the person would not want any harm to come to other humans. This perspective would reward non-violent acts of political protest which maintains the safety of all others involved or even just the bystanders. The type of things that this person may protest would be things like, war, injustice, or even inequality. All acts of perceived inequality or violence towards other humans would be open to protest by people who see the world in this lense. The phrase used in the readings that stands out is “unity in plurality” the reading says that this is extremely pleasing to God. In very plain English this phrase is essentially saying many people standing together as one, so a person who thinks this way would be likely to hold rallies or create groups to raise awareness. These groups that share this belief would focus on justice for others who may not be able to fight for it themselves because they view the world as having a brotherhood of man. I think a very key part of their perspective would be that the person would not hold any ill will towards those who may be perceived as “evil” or might be considered to be harming others. This is because those that are “evil” are also members of the family of humanity and still seen as children of God to these people. An example of this type of political action to me would be Martin Luther King Jr. He was a minister after all and often used terms like “brothers and sisters” when referring to others. Also Dr. King was a huge proponent of civil disobedience to raise awareness for the civil rights movement. Although MLK was met with violent opposition to his cause he never acted in any malicious way towards those who wanted terrible things done to himself and his followers. I would say that MLK is the poster child for this type of belief and was the first person I thought of when I read the question for this week. Although the reading makes this seem to be a strictly religious perception. I would argue that many people who believe in these similar morals are seeing the world not in a religious context but would frame the issue as more of an equality issue or fairness to all issues. In the United States we value the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance “liberty and justice for all” and what that stands for which is fairness and equality to all. A person does not have to believe in a God to believe in that part of government”. what the professor said under the question: (You are not required to answer the questions below, though you may do so if you choose. They are designed to help you think through the assigned question, above.)

If you believe that humans are *meant* or *supposed* to be unified and united:

How are you likely to view the following: disagreement, conflict, dissent, etc.? Are these expected and appropriate (if uncomfortable) features of any society? Or do they seem more like problems to be solved?

Are you more likely to support 1) a pluralistic society in which differences are (cautiously) celebrated for how they enrich the lives of all members or 2) a society that stresses the need to overcome differences?

Would you be more inclined to favor 1) a system in which relative peace is maintained but only because some are subject to the will of others or 2) a system in which contestation, disputes, and dissent occur regularly but most people are able to voice and fight for their position?

Note that there is no single correct answer to this week’s question. Your job is instead to make a convincing argument for whatever response you come up with. In other words, make sure that you offer readers reasons to agree with your position. A good first step for everyone will be to find passages in the assigned reading in which Augustine discusses unity, harmony, and/or other related themes and explain what he is arguing in your own words. (If you quote from the text, which I encourage you to do, be sure to include the page number.) Then you can go on to address and respond to the question.

Fourth and last question: Restate the following passage (see Instructions box, below) in your own words. Then explain in detail what Hayek is arguing here. Be sure to include at least one or two relevant citations from the assigned chapters to support your interpretation (remember to include page numbers when you cite) same as question before i will show a classmates answer and you respond, classmates answer: Trying to manage economic activity under a single plan will raise many questions. The answers to which can only be provided by a moral rule, but the catch is that existing morals do not have the answer and no agreed view on what should be done exists either. People will either have unclear or conflicting views on the aforementioned questions. This is because in the free society in which we live, we’ve never had a reason to think about these questions, so of course people will not have common opinions about them.

In order to decipher this passage we must think about the single plan to provide context. Hayek states the impossibility of measuring general welfare on a single scale. The welfare of individuals is influenced by an infinite variety of combinations. He denotes the common good in society to mean one collective ethical code. In the following quote the idea of a single plan arises in contrast with the idea of a general interest. “To direct all our activities according to a single plan presupposes that everyone of our needs is given its rank in an order of values which must be complete enough to make it possible to decide between all the different courses between which the planner has to choose. It presupposes, in short, the existence of a complete ethical code in which all the different human values are allotted their due place.” (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, pp. 60)

The relation between ‘activities’ and the ethical codes lies in the limits the codes set up for society. Hayek thinks these limitations are not an individual’s desired behaviour. Hence his argument that no complete moral code exists or could exist. “The adoption of a common ethical code comprehensive enough to determine a unitary economic plan would mean a complete reversal of this tendency.” (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, pp. 61)

Circling back to the passage, these codes are mentioned as being unclear, therefore containing no answer to the questions arisen from the single plan. He says it is impossible for one mind to comprehend all the needs of every individual. Given this testament, the idea of a single plan will result in a vagueness or lack of clarity in opinions. Also, since needs vary, they compete for limited resources. This is important to understanding human interest. Hayek points out whether an individual’s character is altruistic or egoistic, the act of concern can only grasp a small amount of all needs. In other words, it will never be enough. It can be concluded that the one plan will not suffice all the varying opinions and needs. Hayek is trying to point out the difficulty of transition from a free market to one single plan.. what the professor said under the question: “The attempt to direct all economic activity according to a single plan would raise innumerable questions to which the answer could be provided only by a moral rule, but to which existing morals have no answer and where there exists no agreed view on what ought to be done. People will have either no definite views or conflicting views on such questions, because in the free society in which we have lived there has been no occasion to think about them and still less to form common opinions about them.” (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, pp. 61-62)

NOTE: you are welcome to include a response to Hayek’s position in your answer *provided that you have first sufficiently explained that position.* In other words, in addition to explaining Hayek’s argument in the passage above, you may also say what YOU think about the argument so long as you first explain it in detail. Whether you agree or disagree with Hayek, you should provide reasons to back up your claims.