Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The Limits of the Common Good in Society
The Limits of the Common Good in Society
Philosophy of Law
Fall 2004
“The goal of the general is victory, whereas the goal of the statesman is the common good. What victory means is not essentially controversial, but the meaning of the common good is essentially controversial.” If this statement is true, it is a good assessment of the nature of the problems humanity has encountered in the history of the will to govern and be governed. If the common good is the goal of the statesman, then the common good is essential to good government, and its meaning must be explored. In a democracy such as the United States the meaning of the common good must be explored by all Americans. Is the common good known naturally, that is by intuition and reason, or must it be acquired through experience and experimentation? Can all people apprehend and appreciate what is good for the community? And what, if any, are the limits of the common good in society?
The family is the first community of persons. A family in a single dwelling can involve one or more generation, but essentially it consists of parents and children. It is the natural role of parents to educate their children, shaping them into healthy and successful (in what ever terms) adults. This is accomplished with authority, discipline, which means to teach, and similar methods employed by all animals who play a role in raising their young. Human parents enjoy the same natural instincts shared by other animals, such as the urge to protect their children from harm, but in addition they have the ability to learn from their mistakes and through the power of reason make practical adjustments to their techniques. Parents are the first authority, but even in the most primitive societies, consisting of mainly extended families, they were generally subject to the opinion or rule of older (or stronger) members of the clan, or perhaps only one. If they lived long enough, these parents eventually might have assumed higher roles of authority or influence themselves.
The domestic family is the essential component of all community. Biology dictates that the physical union of a man and a woman begets a child, and the nature of the world dictates that the role of educating children is best accomplished with the involvement of both parents. Men and women may offer varying techniques, but it is indisputable that successful development depends upon the involvement of both sexes in the life of a child. It should foster a healthy love of the opposite sex, as well as an admiration of the child’s own sex, otherwise children cannot become adults who will build healthy families of their own resulting in well disciplined children. Biology also dictates that the domestic family is not a complete community. A mate must be chosen from outside of the immediate family in order to continue a physically healthy line of children. Human nature, that is elements essential to human development and fulfillment, also dictates that an extended human community is necessary to satisfy the very basic needs or goods of each person. These basic goods include the natural rights to life, education, work, leisure, friendship, marriage and children, the sum of which constitutes the common good. The common good then is the network of social conditions that enable persons in the community to flourish and live genuinely and respecting human nature.
The common good is dependent first upon the solidarity of persons in a community, whether it is a domestic family, an extended family, or a society of families. Solidarity can be expressed in friendship and respect. Fundamentally we are all members of one human family with a shared nature, needs and goods. Solidarity requires respect for the dignity and basic goods of all other persons, regardless of circumstances, especially the weak and vulnerable. This can be described as a “preference for the poor,” in which we go beyond justice and demonstrate concern and care for each other as members of one human family.
In order for solidarity to be an effective force in society it must be learned in the original, domestic family. While it is quite natural for us to take the most time and care with the youngest or sick members of our families, selfishness and a lack of concern for the common good of the family can lead us to neglect our own relatives. This can be described as “the breakdown of the family,” and if this condition becomes common, it will affect the entire fabric of society. If we cannot love and respect our own family members, the impact of this massive breakdown will contribute to increased poverty, violence and strife. This selfishness can be aggravated by social conditions set in place by the policy of the community authorities. If a parent has a personal policy in the home of violence and neglect, it is inevitable that the children will learn this behavior and exhibit the same in their own families. Likewise, if society is being governed by a democracy comprised of persons who have little regard for solidarity or the common good of everyone, especially the poor, it is unlikely that they will set in place policies that promote the basic goods of all persons and families.
Economic pressures are one of the most obvious factors influenced by public policy that can contribute to family breakdown. Very little support is given to single parents and often both parents must work just to pay their bills leaving little time for caring for their children. The consumerist temptation to have bigger and better toys and ornaments aggravates our selfish impulses that may cause us to ignore the common good of our families and the human family as a whole. Love of family leads to love of neighbor. Love of neighbor is solidarity. The common good requires solidarity.
While there are varied forms of government, authority arises naturally in the domestic and human family. The law is a teacher, just as rules in a household serve to promote discipline. In this way authority is paternalistic. In a democracy the governing authority is not made up of elders necessarily, but we expect them to be at the service of the community similarly to the way parents care for their children. Parents have different relationships with their children at different stages of development or as circumstances demand. Parents have different duties to a young child than to an adult, to a sick child than to a child who is caring for a sick parent. Eventually children take responsibility for each other and become parents themselves. Likewise, policy makers have different responsibilities to different classes of people, especially a duty to the weak and vulnerable. Policy should not allow differences to promote division in the human family and neglect of some members. Instead the governing authority has a responsibility to ensure that differences in circumstances and conditions of human life lead to solidarity as we all strive to fulfill the basic human goods of individual persons and the common good of all.
One of our responsibilities to our families and neighbors, especially in a democracy, is to participate in public life. In this way we all promote the common good, whether it be as family members, community members, or members of a governing authority. If we are not elected into public office, we at least participate by voting for policy makers, affecting policy for the society for the benefit of our families and community. Direct participation is best accomplished when persons of the community are free to form associations based on work, language, religion, region, or some other element of culture. These associations promote solidarity and strengthen the electoral “voice” of a community.
In order to prevent the imposition of one cultural standard onto a community that holds another, or a community of diverse cultures, the principle of subsidiarity allows for localized governments that respect the tastes and predilections of a particular area, whether nation, province, city, or neighborhood. Local governments may be limited by and subject to larger regional governments, but they should enjoy some equality with adjacent local jurisdictions. Subsidiary is best accomplished when local communities can rule themselves according to their customs and cultural norms as long as the common good of all including “outsiders” is respected. Custom is not license to infringe on the rights and basic goods of others. Custom is a means to the end of fulfilling our rights and obligations under the law. Since local and regional communities have different experiences in the context of religion, history, climate, terrain, language, creativity and learning, it is legitimate that they would develop different customs and approaches to policy making. These differences should be respected with solidarity and subsidiarity, bringing the human family closer together beginning with the smallest unit of society, family, and building to the global human family with cohesion and collaboration of all.
While it is important that we work and participate in community life on a local level, it is just as important that we concern ourselves with our global ecology and the lives of the members of our human family in other parts of the world. Our basic goods are best secured at the local level, with support from surrounding regional governments, but ultimately we are all dependent upon the same natural resources that are unequally distributed throughout the world. The skills of other communities can enrich our own lives in a cultural, material, and aesthetic sense. These skills are often dependant on a region’s natural resources, and throughout history families and communities have followed game, minerals, and other work or opportunities to make a living based upon the natural resources of the region. This unequal distribution of natural resources has led to the cultivation of art and skills, the products of which have led to trade among persons and entire communities.
As one community may be more directly dependent upon a particular natural resource, because of the nature of the world and the development of trade we are all dependent on these natural resources on some level, and so we all have an interest in processing and preserving them for not only this generation but for our children as well. Regarding natural resources and trade then, it is necessary to consider the common good of all of humanity, not only the local community. It is contrary to the principle of solidarity to act in a protectionist manner, denying some communities the opportunity to participate in the processing of natural resources or trade with other communities. Solidarity also demands respect for local workers and tradesmen from outside competitors.
As demand increases, technology also seems to progress, and technology must be at the service of the common good, improving our human family and our home, the earth, not exploiting nature’s resources and demeaning the work and dignity of the human family. Clean air and water and warmth in the winter are necessary according to the common good, since life is a basic good and the first natural right. Clean air and water and heat can be opposed to one another, since the burning of certain materials, while efficient in providing warmth, contribute to the pollution of water and air. A balance of these goods is essential to the common good, and this must be considered on a global level. Pollution in Europe can lead to acid rain in Asia. In other words, the effects of our work and technology are not always felt by the local community, but can pollute our neighboring communities. All of us then must be concerned with the ecology of our world balanced with the rights of persons and communities to make a living through solidarity and subsidiarity. This means that technology must be employed for the common good of all, not the commercial interests of a few.
While the common good demands a preference for the poor in local communities, we must also be concerned with the poor in other parts of the world, sometimes entire communities. Human rights can be defined as the freedom of each person to pursue his or her basic goods. These rights are natural, that is essential to human fulfillment. Freedom is not freedom from attack, but freedom to pursue the basic human goods in light of the common good. This freedom is not community or government specific, but shared by the human family. Even a criminal, who has attacked the basic goods of others to the detriment of the common good, is contained in prison not to punish him by stripping him of his basic human goods, but to contain him from the rest of the community for the common good. Criminals must be allowed a decent standard of living, the ability to work, to learn, and communication with his friends and family. It is in the interest of the basic goods of the criminal and the common good that the authorities who have limited the freedom of a criminal use this time to educate him against his crimes, even if he is facing life in prison, for his own fulfillment and the benefit of his family and other inmates.
Crimes perpetrated by one community against another are typically described as war. War is the most egregious offence against the basic goods of persons and the common good imaginable. War does not only affect the region where fighting is taking place. It affects the entire world. The crimes committed against persons in these wars cannot be ignored or dismissed by comparing them to other crimes. War is mass murder. It should be avoided at all costs. While self-defense is protection of a basic human good, namely life, it is unacceptable that some communities justify their aggressive actions against other communities by appealing to the criminal impulse of revenge. Real persons, not characters in stories, or even the authorities who call for war, are the victims of these crimes. Wars fought in the name of ideologies are the most offensive. The desire to impose one form of government onto another community for the supposed good of that community is a sophist fraud. There are many valid forms of government, and the principle of subsidiarity demands that communities decide for themselves what form their government will take. The principle of solidarity demands that warriors always respect the natural human rights of all persons, even enemy combatants. The common good of all demands that war be as difficult to initiate as possible.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Authorities throughout time have neglected the common good for their own benefit. Without the freedom to pursue basic human goods, communities collapse in on themselves, crimes increase, and wars become imminent. It is persons, families, associations, and communities that must always be concerned with the common good, educate others, and put pressure on the local and regional authorities. Reasonable persons can disagree about the particulars of the administration of the common good, but the common good is essential to human nature and recognizable by all reasonable persons.
We all naturally recognize an unjust situation. This recognition leads to an understanding of the common good and a desire to see the common good implemented in society. Desire should lead to action, and action within the framework of the common good must respect the basic human goods of all persons.
Bibliography
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Citta del Vaticano, 1994.
The Common Good: Origins of Social Teaching, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, 1996.
John Paul II, On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Pauline Books & Media, Boston, 1991.
Anastaplo, George, et al., Human Being and Citizen: Essays on Virtue, Freedom, and the Common Good, The Swallow Press, Inc., Chicago, 1975.
Aquinas, St. Thomas, Treatise on Law: Summa Theologica, Questions 90-97, Regency Publishing, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1956.
Dickie, Robert B., et al., Corporations and the Common Good, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana, 1986.
Finnis, John, Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980.
George, Robert P., et al., Natural Law & Moral Inquiry: Ethics, Metaphysics, and Politics in the Work of Germain Grisez, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., 1998.
Williams, Oliver F., et al., The Common Good and U.S. Capitalism, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, 1987.
Philosophy of Law
Fall 2004
“The goal of the general is victory, whereas the goal of the statesman is the common good. What victory means is not essentially controversial, but the meaning of the common good is essentially controversial.” If this statement is true, it is a good assessment of the nature of the problems humanity has encountered in the history of the will to govern and be governed. If the common good is the goal of the statesman, then the common good is essential to good government, and its meaning must be explored. In a democracy such as the United States the meaning of the common good must be explored by all Americans. Is the common good known naturally, that is by intuition and reason, or must it be acquired through experience and experimentation? Can all people apprehend and appreciate what is good for the community? And what, if any, are the limits of the common good in society?
The family is the first community of persons. A family in a single dwelling can involve one or more generation, but essentially it consists of parents and children. It is the natural role of parents to educate their children, shaping them into healthy and successful (in what ever terms) adults. This is accomplished with authority, discipline, which means to teach, and similar methods employed by all animals who play a role in raising their young. Human parents enjoy the same natural instincts shared by other animals, such as the urge to protect their children from harm, but in addition they have the ability to learn from their mistakes and through the power of reason make practical adjustments to their techniques. Parents are the first authority, but even in the most primitive societies, consisting of mainly extended families, they were generally subject to the opinion or rule of older (or stronger) members of the clan, or perhaps only one. If they lived long enough, these parents eventually might have assumed higher roles of authority or influence themselves.
The domestic family is the essential component of all community. Biology dictates that the physical union of a man and a woman begets a child, and the nature of the world dictates that the role of educating children is best accomplished with the involvement of both parents. Men and women may offer varying techniques, but it is indisputable that successful development depends upon the involvement of both sexes in the life of a child. It should foster a healthy love of the opposite sex, as well as an admiration of the child’s own sex, otherwise children cannot become adults who will build healthy families of their own resulting in well disciplined children. Biology also dictates that the domestic family is not a complete community. A mate must be chosen from outside of the immediate family in order to continue a physically healthy line of children. Human nature, that is elements essential to human development and fulfillment, also dictates that an extended human community is necessary to satisfy the very basic needs or goods of each person. These basic goods include the natural rights to life, education, work, leisure, friendship, marriage and children, the sum of which constitutes the common good. The common good then is the network of social conditions that enable persons in the community to flourish and live genuinely and respecting human nature.
The common good is dependent first upon the solidarity of persons in a community, whether it is a domestic family, an extended family, or a society of families. Solidarity can be expressed in friendship and respect. Fundamentally we are all members of one human family with a shared nature, needs and goods. Solidarity requires respect for the dignity and basic goods of all other persons, regardless of circumstances, especially the weak and vulnerable. This can be described as a “preference for the poor,” in which we go beyond justice and demonstrate concern and care for each other as members of one human family.
In order for solidarity to be an effective force in society it must be learned in the original, domestic family. While it is quite natural for us to take the most time and care with the youngest or sick members of our families, selfishness and a lack of concern for the common good of the family can lead us to neglect our own relatives. This can be described as “the breakdown of the family,” and if this condition becomes common, it will affect the entire fabric of society. If we cannot love and respect our own family members, the impact of this massive breakdown will contribute to increased poverty, violence and strife. This selfishness can be aggravated by social conditions set in place by the policy of the community authorities. If a parent has a personal policy in the home of violence and neglect, it is inevitable that the children will learn this behavior and exhibit the same in their own families. Likewise, if society is being governed by a democracy comprised of persons who have little regard for solidarity or the common good of everyone, especially the poor, it is unlikely that they will set in place policies that promote the basic goods of all persons and families.
Economic pressures are one of the most obvious factors influenced by public policy that can contribute to family breakdown. Very little support is given to single parents and often both parents must work just to pay their bills leaving little time for caring for their children. The consumerist temptation to have bigger and better toys and ornaments aggravates our selfish impulses that may cause us to ignore the common good of our families and the human family as a whole. Love of family leads to love of neighbor. Love of neighbor is solidarity. The common good requires solidarity.
While there are varied forms of government, authority arises naturally in the domestic and human family. The law is a teacher, just as rules in a household serve to promote discipline. In this way authority is paternalistic. In a democracy the governing authority is not made up of elders necessarily, but we expect them to be at the service of the community similarly to the way parents care for their children. Parents have different relationships with their children at different stages of development or as circumstances demand. Parents have different duties to a young child than to an adult, to a sick child than to a child who is caring for a sick parent. Eventually children take responsibility for each other and become parents themselves. Likewise, policy makers have different responsibilities to different classes of people, especially a duty to the weak and vulnerable. Policy should not allow differences to promote division in the human family and neglect of some members. Instead the governing authority has a responsibility to ensure that differences in circumstances and conditions of human life lead to solidarity as we all strive to fulfill the basic human goods of individual persons and the common good of all.
One of our responsibilities to our families and neighbors, especially in a democracy, is to participate in public life. In this way we all promote the common good, whether it be as family members, community members, or members of a governing authority. If we are not elected into public office, we at least participate by voting for policy makers, affecting policy for the society for the benefit of our families and community. Direct participation is best accomplished when persons of the community are free to form associations based on work, language, religion, region, or some other element of culture. These associations promote solidarity and strengthen the electoral “voice” of a community.
In order to prevent the imposition of one cultural standard onto a community that holds another, or a community of diverse cultures, the principle of subsidiarity allows for localized governments that respect the tastes and predilections of a particular area, whether nation, province, city, or neighborhood. Local governments may be limited by and subject to larger regional governments, but they should enjoy some equality with adjacent local jurisdictions. Subsidiary is best accomplished when local communities can rule themselves according to their customs and cultural norms as long as the common good of all including “outsiders” is respected. Custom is not license to infringe on the rights and basic goods of others. Custom is a means to the end of fulfilling our rights and obligations under the law. Since local and regional communities have different experiences in the context of religion, history, climate, terrain, language, creativity and learning, it is legitimate that they would develop different customs and approaches to policy making. These differences should be respected with solidarity and subsidiarity, bringing the human family closer together beginning with the smallest unit of society, family, and building to the global human family with cohesion and collaboration of all.
While it is important that we work and participate in community life on a local level, it is just as important that we concern ourselves with our global ecology and the lives of the members of our human family in other parts of the world. Our basic goods are best secured at the local level, with support from surrounding regional governments, but ultimately we are all dependent upon the same natural resources that are unequally distributed throughout the world. The skills of other communities can enrich our own lives in a cultural, material, and aesthetic sense. These skills are often dependant on a region’s natural resources, and throughout history families and communities have followed game, minerals, and other work or opportunities to make a living based upon the natural resources of the region. This unequal distribution of natural resources has led to the cultivation of art and skills, the products of which have led to trade among persons and entire communities.
As one community may be more directly dependent upon a particular natural resource, because of the nature of the world and the development of trade we are all dependent on these natural resources on some level, and so we all have an interest in processing and preserving them for not only this generation but for our children as well. Regarding natural resources and trade then, it is necessary to consider the common good of all of humanity, not only the local community. It is contrary to the principle of solidarity to act in a protectionist manner, denying some communities the opportunity to participate in the processing of natural resources or trade with other communities. Solidarity also demands respect for local workers and tradesmen from outside competitors.
As demand increases, technology also seems to progress, and technology must be at the service of the common good, improving our human family and our home, the earth, not exploiting nature’s resources and demeaning the work and dignity of the human family. Clean air and water and warmth in the winter are necessary according to the common good, since life is a basic good and the first natural right. Clean air and water and heat can be opposed to one another, since the burning of certain materials, while efficient in providing warmth, contribute to the pollution of water and air. A balance of these goods is essential to the common good, and this must be considered on a global level. Pollution in Europe can lead to acid rain in Asia. In other words, the effects of our work and technology are not always felt by the local community, but can pollute our neighboring communities. All of us then must be concerned with the ecology of our world balanced with the rights of persons and communities to make a living through solidarity and subsidiarity. This means that technology must be employed for the common good of all, not the commercial interests of a few.
While the common good demands a preference for the poor in local communities, we must also be concerned with the poor in other parts of the world, sometimes entire communities. Human rights can be defined as the freedom of each person to pursue his or her basic goods. These rights are natural, that is essential to human fulfillment. Freedom is not freedom from attack, but freedom to pursue the basic human goods in light of the common good. This freedom is not community or government specific, but shared by the human family. Even a criminal, who has attacked the basic goods of others to the detriment of the common good, is contained in prison not to punish him by stripping him of his basic human goods, but to contain him from the rest of the community for the common good. Criminals must be allowed a decent standard of living, the ability to work, to learn, and communication with his friends and family. It is in the interest of the basic goods of the criminal and the common good that the authorities who have limited the freedom of a criminal use this time to educate him against his crimes, even if he is facing life in prison, for his own fulfillment and the benefit of his family and other inmates.
Crimes perpetrated by one community against another are typically described as war. War is the most egregious offence against the basic goods of persons and the common good imaginable. War does not only affect the region where fighting is taking place. It affects the entire world. The crimes committed against persons in these wars cannot be ignored or dismissed by comparing them to other crimes. War is mass murder. It should be avoided at all costs. While self-defense is protection of a basic human good, namely life, it is unacceptable that some communities justify their aggressive actions against other communities by appealing to the criminal impulse of revenge. Real persons, not characters in stories, or even the authorities who call for war, are the victims of these crimes. Wars fought in the name of ideologies are the most offensive. The desire to impose one form of government onto another community for the supposed good of that community is a sophist fraud. There are many valid forms of government, and the principle of subsidiarity demands that communities decide for themselves what form their government will take. The principle of solidarity demands that warriors always respect the natural human rights of all persons, even enemy combatants. The common good of all demands that war be as difficult to initiate as possible.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Authorities throughout time have neglected the common good for their own benefit. Without the freedom to pursue basic human goods, communities collapse in on themselves, crimes increase, and wars become imminent. It is persons, families, associations, and communities that must always be concerned with the common good, educate others, and put pressure on the local and regional authorities. Reasonable persons can disagree about the particulars of the administration of the common good, but the common good is essential to human nature and recognizable by all reasonable persons.
We all naturally recognize an unjust situation. This recognition leads to an understanding of the common good and a desire to see the common good implemented in society. Desire should lead to action, and action within the framework of the common good must respect the basic human goods of all persons.
HMM
Bibliography
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Citta del Vaticano, 1994.
The Common Good: Origins of Social Teaching, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, 1996.
John Paul II, On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Pauline Books & Media, Boston, 1991.
Anastaplo, George, et al., Human Being and Citizen: Essays on Virtue, Freedom, and the Common Good, The Swallow Press, Inc., Chicago, 1975.
Aquinas, St. Thomas, Treatise on Law: Summa Theologica, Questions 90-97, Regency Publishing, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1956.
Dickie, Robert B., et al., Corporations and the Common Good, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana, 1986.
Finnis, John, Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980.
George, Robert P., et al., Natural Law & Moral Inquiry: Ethics, Metaphysics, and Politics in the Work of Germain Grisez, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., 1998.
Williams, Oliver F., et al., The Common Good and U.S. Capitalism, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, 1987.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)