Olson's Theory Of Collective Action

Something of beneficial value should be cared for, while something that’s non-beneficial should not. Utilitarianism measures out the utility of something, or it’s value. Someone that is utilitarian wants to see what could bring people the most pleasure and happiness, so they strive to allow others to be happy and pleasurable. Psychological egoism is a subcategory of egoism. This is “the claim that all actions are motivated by the good to one’s self,” (Leib).

That might influence their attitudes towards the collective action. Lay theories are naïve implicit theories about the world that people use to make sense of their everyday lives (reference?). One of the examples of the lay theories includes theories about willpower, which affect ability to self-regulate (Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2010; Job, Bernecker, & Dweck, 2015). People may have two kinds of the theories of self-regulation: limited and non-limited (Job et al., 2010). Those with a limited theory believe that self-control resources are depletable, while those with non-limited theory believe otherwise.

By moral boundaries, Durkheim referred to a groups ideas on how people should think and act. Deviance challenges these boundaries. “To call member into account is to say in effect, “You broke an important rule, we cannot tolerate that (pg. 172).” Punishing deviant affirms wishing the group, clarifies what it mean to be a member of the

Final Reflection 1 Theory of Change is a particular sort of process for arranging, investment and assessment that is utilized as a part of the private, non-profit and government divisions to advance social change. Hypothesis of Change characterizes long haul objectives that plan how to recognize fundamental preconditions. In the planning and interfacing of preconditions or prerequisites of the theory of change, it is important to accomplish that objective and clarify why these preconditions are fundamental and adequate (Harris, 2005). The theory of change recognizes our essential needs about a unique circumstance and the mediations that our drive will perform to make our coveted change. It involves creating a graph to advance end results and

Leadership is limited by the perspectives that we have which are usually informal theories that we know to be normal. Critical social theory is a tool to get a perspective for leadership theory and is a direct rejection of positivism. Research is said to be biased because those who engage in it, weather or not they are aware of it, act from a set of assumptions that influences their decisions. Critical social theories also assume structural inequality and challenge the taken for granted assumptions while holding people responsible for their own liberation and progressing toward social justice. There are three central themes of critical social theory that were chosen to enhance the understanding of leadership.

Rawls dubbed this as the ‘veil or ignorance’ and the key idea behind this is that no one would want to disadvantage a community in society if they may end up being part of that community however there are problem areas within this theory the first idea being that it would be way to impractical as well as unrealistic furthermore Dworkin states that even though individuals may accept principles whilst unware of their standing in society, some may reject laws that disadvantages them whilst others may use their positions to gain an advantage at the expense of others in

How do I Make Moral choices, in a World of Moral Ambiguity? A desire for meaning would also include obtaining some kind of “identity,” or individualism. Yet, society or someone will try to force their “ideal” moral system onto everyone else. “Thinking may be “good for nothing” in the world, but in the mind it is good for guidance—not legislation, but guidance” (Bruehl 193). If you base your moral standards off everyone else’s, even when in truth you think in a different way, then in the eyes of an existentialist, you have been degraded and reduced to an object.

First, one must assume his own subjectivity (Ethics 2:41-42). In other words, one must realize his or her own place in life and come to terms with their individual being. There are, however, some flaws in the assuming of one 's own subjectivity. These flaws could be the desire of one to obtain more being or increasing the value of one 's being. It is tempting for one to try and obtain more being, however, Beauvoir notes this as living inauthentic.

While it is true that certain individual rights are sacrificed for the good of the community as a whole, it does not necessarily follow and conform these societal norms because there Individuality in its purest form is dangerous. Restricted individuality is ideal because it appeases the masses (which apparently feel quite strongly about their individuality) while ensuring social order. But the social order always comes with the price of conformity, proving that conformity is necessary. These findings challenge the work of earlier researchers, who tended to assume that individuality is an unalienable right. Ultimately, what is at stake here is conformity becoming dangerous because it denies people’s individuality.

Much is known about the power of the norm of reciprocity to elicit behavior in social exchanges (Cialdini& Goldstein, 2004). On the contrary, Keysar, Converse, Wang and Epley (2008) demonstrate that social exchange is based largely on the meaning of social actions, rather than on the objective value of those actions. Negative actions of taking are reciprocated more selfishly while positive action of giving are reciprocated in similar measures. Thus, norms of reciprocity should embolden positive behavior but should strongly discourage negative behavior for there is an inherent asymmetry between reciprocity to giving versus

If punishment can be shown to promote effectively the interest of society, then it is justifiable, otherwise it is not. Seeing as the main characteristic of Utilitarianism is to maximize utility (i.e happiness/good), it consequently follows that punishment should be applied when it leads to improved overall circumstances in a given situation. One main argument for punishment in the Utilitarian view, is that of the deterrent effect it has, hence, threatening potential offenders in order to discourage them from breaking the law. This places the practice of punishment under strictly preventative and deterrent means. In light of this, Rawls points to the shortcomings and common criticisms of the Utilitarian model for justifying punishment.