Based on today’s reading, how would you define the public good? In what ways might your final essay respond to, incorporate, or in some way relate to your emerging notion of what the public good is (or could or should be)?
To me, writing for the public good is reaching an audience and informing them of something that would benefit them. Since we are not writing for an academic journal and instead for an audience who would be reading our work at leisure, the piece of writing can be much less rigid and dry. Instead, we can fuse passion, humor, and opinion into this paper. When writing for the public good, the writer is intending to inform and protect the audience from something in the world. For example, a piece on why eating organic would be appropriate and how organic food can benefit the greater good, and what avoiding organic food would do. One important component is that the writing isn't preachy in nature. The writer isn't intending to convert or condemn the author for their current practices. Instead, the author is merely saying "this is the information I am presenting to you that I think would benefit your life yet you are allowed to make your own decision on this topic." Because this piece serves mostly to inform or shed light on something that is often overlooked or unknown by the common good, it is an important tool to allow people to see both perspectives of an issue but decide on their own conclusion based upon their own beliefs. It isn't meant to be overly pushy.
The public good is a very broad notion that can encompass a large variety of issues. It can be anything from public health of everyone due to dangers involved in an emerging infectious disease, to the wellbeing of a very small population of individuals who are being swept under the rug or discriminated against.
In my essay I would hope to incorporate the relevance of the public good by raising awareness for something that affects almost everyone in at least one point in the life, which is animal overpopulation and the necessity of kill-shelters in our society. I think that although there are often commercials seen on TV about how you can donate money to save an animal from an abusive situation or what have you, we rarely get to actually consider the effect of this on ourselves. Not necessarily as animal-abusers, but as people who must deal with the effects, things such as stray and feral animals roaming the streets, the tax money we spend attempting to corral the growing issue of overpopulation and euthanization of shelter animals.
I didn't realize there could be so many interpretations of the public good until reading this article. What I liked most about what the reading had to say was that there truly is no contested definition of what the common good is. It varies to everyone. This made me think back to a prior discussion we had at the beginning of the quarter about how words really cannot have one solid definition because emotions and feeling attach different meanings to words and concepts like the public good.
To me, I really like the idea of people gaining a sense of personal satisfaction through helping others less fortunate. The combination of self-interest translating into the public good stood out to me. It's a concept of treating the least of those in our global community with the same treatment we want for ourselves. We can learn from our own self-interest how to best treat others. Most often, the good we want for ourselves, is the good others seek as well. The problem is finding a balance between the two. If I continue to do work concerning the SAME cafe, I think this concept could easily carry over to the SAME. Brad and Libby treat everyone the way they want to be treated. That is an example of people 'being the change' they 'want to see in the world.' I'm not sure if I will continue this last essay using the SAME as a theme, but I am definitely considering it unless I find something more interesting to me.
I define the public good as the intrinsic best possible situation that mitigates the most possible community harm, with the acknowledgment that there will be some harm done to some individuals. The public good is NOT the same as public opinion, to quote Immortal Technique, "universal truth is not measured by mass appeal". This means that although the public might not want to recognize something as being good, the reality might be that a choice needs to be made for the benefit of all humanity. I like to think of it like the Emperor's New Cloths, a satyrical piece in which an entire society believes in a cloth so fine that only the worthy can see it, and everybody stands around naked, waiting for the emperor to show off his new suit, pretending that they are worthy of the cloths that they are really not wearing. A little kid then points out the fact that everybody is naked, and everybody realizes their fault.
I would define the public good in terms of Adam Smith (as referenced in today's reading): what was good for the individual in a narrow sense was also good, "through the invisible hand," for the polity. This idea just seems logical to me... if a person's actions enhance their life, then the public group (which is comprised of other individuals each engaging in actions to enhance their lives) is better off as well. This viewpoint, I know, assumes that people are inherently good. But, in my experience... this holds to be true.
The public good can be a lot of things. It is something that benefits a group of people in the community. Writers discuss topics they feel are necessary to improve the public good in order to inform their audience of things that should be considered or even changed in society.
At the moment, I am considering writing an essay on terrorism. This might incorporate the public good by offering methods to effectively combat terrorism to better the safety and security for all. This could benefit the public good by offering them an idea of how they can improve their lives through their influence on public policy.
Based on the reading, there is no one definition of the public good, since we know neither who/what the "public" is nor what the "good" is. However, I believe the "public" that needs most to be considered are those people who have little power to create the "good" for themselves, and thus need others to consider them in their decision-making processes. If the public good were based on what is good for institutions/people with a lot of power, it would cease to be public good and become private self-interest.
That said, I don't know if my final paper is necessarily going to address this definition of the public good, at least not explicitly. In other words, I'm not going to talk about oppression and power struggles. However, I'm thinking of writing about a cultural issue that points to underlying mindsets. Although I'm not going to pretend that the reason I want to write about this topic isn't mostly because I find a certain group of people fascinating and see some possibilities for satire.
The most significant point that I drew from the reading about the public good is that the phrase is virtually undefinable. It is relative to every situation and every person, and no single action can benefit everyone. There are always people who "win" and "lose" in every situation. What is good for the "community" may not be good for individual people and vice versa.
For my project, I want to look at education and poverty. Students are no required to stay in school until the age of 16 and are encouraged to graduate and attend college. However, if everyone gets a college degree etc., who is going to flip burgers and clean houses? Having people in these low-income jobs benefits one section of the population while it hurts the people in those jobs because they basically cannot make ends meet. How do we reconcile this and make everyone benefit? Is that even possible?
I would define the public good as anything that benefits the welfare of the majority of the population. Its a pretty general idea but it can include donating, volunteering, supporting or helping advance the well-being of the general public. I don't exactly know my topic as of yet but I was considering the importance and effects of unions in today's society. Over the past several years I have learned a lot about how unions operate and how the engage with businesses and I hold a special interest with this topic.
After reading the essay by Jane Mansbridge, I would define the public good as a convoluted concept which weighs the benefits of an action for an individual against the benefits of that action for the community as a whole. In general those action that are good for the public benefit the majority of the people in a population. Though Mansbridge argues that in some circumstances, the public good benefits the “enterprise” that people belong to as opposed to the individuals themselves, I tend to think that something should only qualify as good if it helps most and harms no one.
With this in mind, I intend to write my essay educating the public on a topic concerning an aspect of modern health-care that is beneficial to almost everyone who uses it, encouraging support of these medical organizations. Right now, I am considering writing on the prevalence of mental illness among the homeless (and encouraging support of non-profit facilities that offer basic psychiatric help to the homeless) or perhaps on some cultural issue that relates to hospice organizations.
Earlier this year I wrote an essay on the definition of good. I talked in circles and failed to effectively define anything. Upon further reflection I have determined that ideals that I consider good include competence, responsibility, accountability, and a belief in personal ability. Because my definition of good focuses on the individual, I struggle greatly with this idea of the "public" good. I think the public good is an entity that ought to be thought of as little as possible and that it ought to provide individuals the opportunity to be individual. However, not all people are given a chance to become competent so I think the public good has something to do with opportunities being available to all who seek them. I don't think this is the case in our society today and in our third essay I plan to address how homeless people are often bullied out of whatever opportunities they are fortunate enough to come across.
To me, writing for the public good is reaching an audience and informing them of something that would benefit them. Since we are not writing for an academic journal and instead for an audience who would be reading our work at leisure, the piece of writing can be much less rigid and dry. Instead, we can fuse passion, humor, and opinion into this paper. When writing for the public good, the writer is intending to inform and protect the audience from something in the world. For example, a piece on why eating organic would be appropriate and how organic food can benefit the greater good, and what avoiding organic food would do. One important component is that the writing isn't preachy in nature. The writer isn't intending to convert or condemn the author for their current practices. Instead, the author is merely saying "this is the information I am presenting to you that I think would benefit your life yet you are allowed to make your own decision on this topic." Because this piece serves mostly to inform or shed light on something that is often overlooked or unknown by the common good, it is an important tool to allow people to see both perspectives of an issue but decide on their own conclusion based upon their own beliefs. It isn't meant to be overly pushy.
ReplyDeleteThe public good is a very broad notion that can encompass a large variety of issues. It can be anything from public health of everyone due to dangers involved in an emerging infectious disease, to the wellbeing of a very small population of individuals who are being swept under the rug or discriminated against.
ReplyDeleteIn my essay I would hope to incorporate the relevance of the public good by raising awareness for something that affects almost everyone in at least one point in the life, which is animal overpopulation and the necessity of kill-shelters in our society. I think that although there are often commercials seen on TV about how you can donate money to save an animal from an abusive situation or what have you, we rarely get to actually consider the effect of this on ourselves. Not necessarily as animal-abusers, but as people who must deal with the effects, things such as stray and feral animals roaming the streets, the tax money we spend attempting to corral the growing issue of overpopulation and euthanization of shelter animals.
I didn't realize there could be so many interpretations of the public good until reading this article. What I liked most about what the reading had to say was that there truly is no contested definition of what the common good is. It varies to everyone. This made me think back to a prior discussion we had at the beginning of the quarter about how words really cannot have one solid definition because emotions and feeling attach different meanings to words and concepts like the public good.
ReplyDeleteTo me, I really like the idea of people gaining a sense of personal satisfaction through helping others less fortunate. The combination of self-interest translating into the public good stood out to me. It's a concept of treating the least of those in our global community with the same treatment we want for ourselves. We can learn from our own self-interest how to best treat others. Most often, the good we want for ourselves, is the good others seek as well. The problem is finding a balance between the two. If I continue to do work concerning the SAME cafe, I think this concept could easily carry over to the SAME. Brad and Libby treat everyone the way they want to be treated. That is an example of people 'being the change' they 'want to see in the world.' I'm not sure if I will continue this last essay using the SAME as a theme, but I am definitely considering it unless I find something more interesting to me.
I define the public good as the intrinsic best possible situation that mitigates the most possible community harm, with the acknowledgment that there will be some harm done to some individuals. The public good is NOT the same as public opinion, to quote Immortal Technique, "universal truth is not measured by mass appeal". This means that although the public might not want to recognize something as being good, the reality might be that a choice needs to be made for the benefit of all humanity. I like to think of it like the Emperor's New Cloths, a satyrical piece in which an entire society believes in a cloth so fine that only the worthy can see it, and everybody stands around naked, waiting for the emperor to show off his new suit, pretending that they are worthy of the cloths that they are really not wearing. A little kid then points out the fact that everybody is naked, and everybody realizes their fault.
ReplyDeleteI would define the public good in terms of Adam Smith (as referenced in today's reading): what was good for the individual in a narrow sense was also good, "through the invisible hand," for the polity.
ReplyDeleteThis idea just seems logical to me... if a person's actions enhance their life, then the public group (which is comprised of other individuals each engaging in actions to enhance their lives) is better off as well. This viewpoint, I know, assumes that people are inherently good. But, in my experience... this holds to be true.
The public good can be a lot of things. It is something that benefits a group of people in the community. Writers discuss topics they feel are necessary to improve the public good in order to inform their audience of things that should be considered or even changed in society.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, I am considering writing an essay on terrorism. This might incorporate the public good by offering methods to effectively combat terrorism to better the safety and security for all. This could benefit the public good by offering them an idea of how they can improve their lives through their influence on public policy.
Based on the reading, there is no one definition of the public good, since we know neither who/what the "public" is nor what the "good" is. However, I believe the "public" that needs most to be considered are those people who have little power to create the "good" for themselves, and thus need others to consider them in their decision-making processes. If the public good were based on what is good for institutions/people with a lot of power, it would cease to be public good and become private self-interest.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don't know if my final paper is necessarily going to address this definition of the public good, at least not explicitly. In other words, I'm not going to talk about oppression and power struggles. However, I'm thinking of writing about a cultural issue that points to underlying mindsets. Although I'm not going to pretend that the reason I want to write about this topic isn't mostly because I find a certain group of people fascinating and see some possibilities for satire.
The most significant point that I drew from the reading about the public good is that the phrase is virtually undefinable. It is relative to every situation and every person, and no single action can benefit everyone. There are always people who "win" and "lose" in every situation. What is good for the "community" may not be good for individual people and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteFor my project, I want to look at education and poverty. Students are no required to stay in school until the age of 16 and are encouraged to graduate and attend college. However, if everyone gets a college degree etc., who is going to flip burgers and clean houses? Having people in these low-income jobs benefits one section of the population while it hurts the people in those jobs because they basically cannot make ends meet. How do we reconcile this and make everyone benefit? Is that even possible?
I would define the public good as anything that benefits the welfare of the majority of the population. Its a pretty general idea but it can include donating, volunteering, supporting or helping advance the well-being of the general public. I don't exactly know my topic as of yet but I was considering the importance and effects of unions in today's society. Over the past several years I have learned a lot about how unions operate and how the engage with businesses and I hold a special interest with this topic.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the essay by Jane Mansbridge, I would define the public good as a convoluted concept which weighs the benefits of an action for an individual against the benefits of that action for the community as a whole. In general those action that are good for the public benefit the majority of the people in a population. Though Mansbridge argues that in some circumstances, the public good benefits the “enterprise” that people belong to as opposed to the individuals themselves, I tend to think that something should only qualify as good if it helps most and harms no one.
ReplyDeleteWith this in mind, I intend to write my essay educating the public on a topic concerning an aspect of modern health-care that is beneficial to almost everyone who uses it, encouraging support of these medical organizations. Right now, I am considering writing on the prevalence of mental illness among the homeless (and encouraging support of non-profit facilities that offer basic psychiatric help to the homeless) or perhaps on some cultural issue that relates to hospice organizations.
Earlier this year I wrote an essay on the definition of good. I talked in circles and failed to effectively define anything. Upon further reflection I have determined that ideals that I consider good include competence, responsibility, accountability, and a belief in personal ability. Because my definition of good focuses on the individual, I struggle greatly with this idea of the "public" good. I think the public good is an entity that ought to be thought of as little as possible and that it ought to provide individuals the opportunity to be individual. However, not all people are given a chance to become competent so I think the public good has something to do with opportunities being available to all who seek them. I don't think this is the case in our society today and in our third essay I plan to address how homeless people are often bullied out of whatever opportunities they are fortunate enough to come across.
ReplyDelete