Major factors in political and social protest movements.

 

In recent years, the internet, and especially social media, have been major factors in political and social protest movements. From uprisings in Hong Kong to US presidential campaigns to the nationwide Black Lives Matter demonstrations, social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been instrumental in organizing and publicizing activist movements for change. On the other hand, however, the past decade has also seen the rise of what some call “slacktivism,” i.e., forms of protest that get a lot of buzz on social media but don’t seem to inspire supporters to do anything more meaningful than retweeting or clicking “like.”
By the beginning of next class, please read/watch the pieces linked below, and then, in the discussion thread, please respond to the following questions:

1. Do you believe that social media is changing the nature of social activism for the better or for the worse? Why?
2. It’s clear that political scientists would be interested in the social media activism/slacktivism topic — but who else in the academy might be interested? That is, what other scholarly disciplines might gain new insights by studying the rise of internet activism/slacktivism? And why?
Please aim to be imaginative in your response to the second question, by thinking about scholarly disciplines that, at first glance, may not appear to have an interest in the topic at all, but that should, you decide, be very interested, indeed. For example, why might philosophers be interested in this topic? How about art historians? Anthropologists? Psychologists?

 

Sample Solution

Social media is changing the nature of social activism for the better. Websites and social media can garner the support of hundreds of thousands for a particular cause. They can even bring issues to light that might otherwise have been overlooked by mainstream media. Sticking a pamphlet in each door has been replaced by email lists in a lot of places. Standing on the corner with one of those megaphone things has become Twitter. Petitions can easily be shared on Facebook instead of being taken from door to door or standing outside the supermarket. And thousands of people can organize for rallies and demonstrations in almost no time at all. And in some cases, stories that might have been overlooked by the mainstream media are kept alive by online activists, as in the Trayvon Martin Case.

uld be no trust that people are obeying rules if the comman man would just make decisions that allowed any kind of violations of law or cheating for sake of maximising good.

Bernard Williams argued consequentialism required impartiality which focuses on consequences of action and this requirement deprives an individual of their own integrity because the concept of utilitarianism doesn’t differentiate in a person themselves bringing about an outcome vs someone else producing an outcome.

Practically rule consequentialism proves to maximise utility in situations such as traffic rules. It would be safer if everyone followed rules like ‘no drunk driving or speed limit.’ Hence its safer to follow rule utility over act utility in such cases. Act utility would give room for individuals to determine the best action.

A rule based system leads to greater overall utility because people are capable of having bad judgement. Having specific rules to follow maximizes utility by not relying on the drivers’ judgments that could possibly endanger others or themselves too. For instance, based on an individual drivers’ judgements not following the road stop signs over some emergency could endanger many. The stop sign would distinctly set the rule and tell drivers to stop and does not allow them to calculate whether it would be better to stop or not.

Rule consequentialism avoids criticisms of act consequentialism. According to critics, act consequentialism approves of actions that can be wrong, undermine justice, undermine basic trust among people, and its demanding because it requires people to make sacrifices.

Rule consequentialists avoids underming trust because they do not evaluate individual actions separately and instead support rules that maximize utility.

Many of the rules would maximize utility. For example, rules that clearly distinguish the right and wrong in medical practice where doctors would clearly not be allowed to use one healthy patients organs to save five other patient lives, even if saving five patients results in maximum good. Else no one would trust doctors or the benefits of medical treatment.

In defence of rule utility, Brak Hooker pointed out the different contexts in wh

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.