Common Good (Alternatively Called “The Actively Shapes the Good of the Individual

C o m m o n G o o d good of the community. He begins by asking what sort of people we want society to produce, Amitai Etzioni moving then to the question of how we should structure society to achieve this end (1941: § 7, O v e r v i e w ch. 1). This question presupposes that a society has a shared end that both is separate from and The common good (alternatively called “the actively shapes the good of the individual. public interest” or “public goods”) denotes Thus, Plato and Aristotle present a vision of the those goods that serve all members of a given common good that cannot simply be reduced community and its institutions, and, as to the sum of all private interests, but whose such, includes both goods that serve no iden- promotion is nonetheless conducive to those tifiable particular group, as well as those that interests – virtuous, fulfilled citizens and har- serve members of generations not yet born. monious communities are both consequences It is a normative concept with a long and of the pursuit of the good life. contested history. Philosophers, theologians, The ancient Roman philosophers had a sim- lawyers, politicians, and the public have ilarly robust and inherently political concep- arrived at distinct understandings about what tion of the common good. Cicero (1928 : bk. 1 the common good entails, how it should be ch. xxv), writing around 50 bce defined a balanced against individual goods, and if and “people” or “republic” as “not any collection of by whom it should be enforced. Though there human beings brought together in any sort of are many critics of the notion of the common way, but an assemblage of people in large num- good (as will be discussed below), it has sur- bers associated in agreement with respect to vived as a meaningful concept for well over justice and a partnership for the common two millennia, and continues to serve as a good.” very significant organizing principle of civic and political life. Christian thought The Common Good in History Often drawing on Greek and Roman tradition, Christian theologians have also explored the Greek and Roman philosophy common good (at least since the time of The common good has deep roots in the his- Augustine). In City of God Augustine takes up tory of philosophical and religious thought. Cicero’s definition of a republic as a people For Plato (1968 : 185) “the good” was objective, joined by their pursuit of the common good defined as that which “every soul pursues and and specifies the content of that good from a for the sake of which it does everything.” Christian perspective: the good is none other Arriving at knowledge of the good within a than God, and to pursue the common good is community would create unity, which is “the to render unto God the love and worship that is greatest blessing for a state.” In this conception His due. Thomas Aquinas maintains a similar there is no tension between the private and theological conception of the common good: public good, as individuals are thought to “God’s own goodness … is the good of the attain happiness (a private good) through the whole universe.” The Christian formulation of pursuit of justice (a public good). For Aristotle the common good also differs from its Greek ( 1941 : 1188–9) “a polis exists for the sake of a predecessors in its acknowledgment of the good life,” and human beings, as political ani- tension that exists between the private and mals, lead a good life by contributing to the public good. Aquinas (1972 : 107) wrote that The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, First Edition. Edited by Michael T. Gibbons. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0178 2 government qualifies as a tyranny when “it is good is here conflated with the well-being of not directed to the common good, but to the the individual. private good.” Moreover, private interest is Given the proper conditions (i.e., a free often associated with selfishness and sin, the market economy) individuals reveal their antithesis of righteous action done in the ser- self-interested preferences in the marketplace vice of God and the common good. at which point supply and demand calibrate Without breaking from these early concep- prices such that these private ends are effi- tions, modern Christians have incorporated ciently met. That is, the common good – the the language of individual rights into their def- summation of all private goods – arises inition of the common good. The Second naturally from the market and no state efforts Vatican Council (Vatican n.d.) defined the are needed to promote it. Indeed, attempts to common good as “the sum total of social con- guide the preferences of individuals towards a ditions which allow people, either as groups or common goal are seen as, at best, paternalism, as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more and at worst, the first step on the road to total- fully and more easily.” And David Hollenbach itarianism, as was famously argued by Friedrich ( 1989: 93), a Catholic scholar, concludes that A. Hayek ( 1944 ) in The Road to Serfdom . “the historically achievable common good will Economists have introduced exceptions to demand that the pluriformity of human this rule for situations in which the invisible community be respected, and such respect hand is unable to provide “public goods” that should be institutionalized politically, legally benefit society at large. The market’s inability to and economically.” That is, even if the ultimate produce such goods reflect what economists call good has a single, absolute definition – God – a “market failure” (an instance where the market pursuing that good need not entail imposing is unable to achieve an efficient allocation of Christian belief and practice on all people. resources) and thus government intervention in the production of these goods is tolerated. In Social Science and Law Examples of public goods include defense, basic research, and public health (e.g., fluoridation Economics and vaccinations). Thus, Kenneth J. Arrow The place of the common good in modern ( 1962 : 619) wrote that “we expect a free enterprise (neoclassical) economics has its origins in economy to underinvest in invention and the Enlightenment conception of society as research (as compared with an ideal) because it is existing “in order to further the goals of indi- risky, because the product can be appropriated viduals, neither asking where the goals of indi- only to a limited extent, and because of increasing viduals come from nor inquiring into the returns in use. This underinvestment will be processes by which individuals are formed in greater for more basic research.” society” (Yuengert 2009 : 5). In neoclassical economics the common good is not an I n l a w objective goal to be discerned and pursued but In public policy debates in the west, and in rather the aggregation of individual goods. particular in the USA, concern for the common This idea was first articulated by Adam Smith good tends to be overshadowed by a legal par- ( 2001 : 288), who posited that man, in pur- adigm that grants primacy to individual rights suing his own personal gain, unwittingly “pro- and liberties. Subscribers to this school of motes that of the society more effectually than thought include both economic conservatives when he really intends to promote it.” The seeking legal protection from government reg- so-called “invisible hand” of the market guides ulation and “legal liberals” who – motivated in selfish interests to maximize the common part by a desire to curb state-sanctioned good, which is defined as the efficient and violence (e.g., war, police brutality, the death maximal creation of wealth. The common penalty) – embrace legally codified rights and 3 broad constraints on state power as the best individualized suspicion have repeatedly been means to that end. Thus, in the USA there has upheld by the courts if there are good reasons been vocal opposition to the various security for them, whether these reasons are said to fall measures that have been introduced following under a “special needs exception” or a “public the 2001 attacks on the American homeland safety exception” to the Fourth Amendment. on the grounds that such measures violate Sobriety checkpoints that stop all or randomly individual rights. Similarly, many object to the chosen drivers, rather than only those whose fact that individual privacy is often violated driving shows signs of being intoxicated, are both by the government and by corporations legally permissible, as is the use of metal detec- and hold that the purpose of the law is to tors in airports and public buildings to search restrict such abuses. the belongings and persons of millions of The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), people each day. Even the First Amendment which defines itself as an institution dedicated has been judged by the Supreme Court to allow to defending individual rights and liberties for a number of restrictions on speech for the (while making little mention of the common sake of the common good, including the bar- good), champions this line of legal thought. ring of incitement, obscenity, threats, slander, The ACLU has a history of mounting legal and child pornography. challenges against what it considers to be Although the US courts have done much to incursions into individual liberty, includ- recognize the value of the common good, ing sobriety checkpoints, Transport Security striking the right balance between the public Administration screening, drug testing for interest and individual rights can prove diffi- people charged with maintaining public safety, cult. Communitarians have weighed in on this pilots, train engineers, and HIV testing for question by providing a set of balancing cri- pregnant women.

Load more