The Common Good? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Individualis
#1106383
Liberals like to bring up "the common good" as an excuse for their repeated violations of individual rights. If a liberal would be so gracious as to oblige, I'd like this term defined.
User avatar
By Citizen J
#1106399
I'll stab at it.

Spock wrote:The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few
Vulcans were logical and liberals. The common good is the concept of serving the needs of the many over the needs of the few. Which is, for the most part, a logical statement in the philosophy of ethics. I believe it's origins of the statement can be traced back to Emmanual Kant.
What makes the term so elusive to define is the fact that it covers an eclectic mix of subjects and is itself subject to subjectivism. Exactly what is good for everyone and what is not? The answer is mostly subjective.

For instance, certain infrastructures such as electrical power generation and distribution and heating gas and oil production/distribution should be regulated so that the heating needs of the many are served over the profiteering needs of the few. Everyone should have heat - that is a 'common good'. But to ensure the common good, the few must endure limited profits - or higher taxation.

subisdies and regulations can also be for the 'common good'. Everyone deserves to eat, to drink and to breathe. Ensuring those three things is for 'the common good'. But to ensure the common good requires subisdies for production and distribution, and regulations to ensure at least a minimum acceptable quality.

So the common good is literally the philosophy of placing the needs of the many over the needs of the few.

But what about things like narcotics, abortion, or health care? Should everyone have free and easy access to any or all of them 'for the common good'? Some would say yes, and others would say no. Thus, the term could become a sort of litmus test for liberalism.

However, sometimes attempts to promote the 'common good' have unintended consequences. Some attempts to promote the 'common good' might actually have the opposite effect. For instance, overly restrictive regulations upon economic competition for the 'common good' can have an unintended consequence of reducing the economic welfare of the whole of society. But overly permissive regulations can also harm 'the common good' with fraud, corruption, monopolies, and other economic problems detrimental to society as was demonstrated in the American 1920s and 30s.

Sometimes we go overboard both ways.

Or I could be way out in left field somewhere.... :hmm:
Last edited by Citizen J on 30 Jan 2007 02:05, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Individualis
#1106408
Okay, "the common good" is defined as, "the concept of serving the needs of the many over the needs of the few." Got it.

Now, another question if I may. Why should the needs of the many be of a higher priority than the needs of the few? What is it about being part of a group that is larger in number than another group that gives it the right to take from the smaller group? Is it mere strength in numbers?

"There are more people that agree with me than there are that agree with you, so now I have the right to take what I need from you." Right?
User avatar
By Citizen J
#1106415
Well at that point, one has to apply ethics to each situation. For instance, if this is something the whole needs to survive that only the few has (like water), then yes. The many can take from the few. However, if we're talking about something like telephone service, then that is where the subjectivism comes into play. Or perhaps you are thinking about some point of policy. 'For the common good' we declare pedophilia or drug use or Bhuddism illegal. Some people will say yes, and other would say no; depending upon what each individual considers ethical.

Ultimately, the concept of 'the common good' taken to it's ultimate extreem ends up with all things belonging to the whole and nothing left for the individual. And that no one can do anything without the express concent of everyone else. But that is an absolute extreem that nobody ever advocates. Everyone moderates that view to one degree or another.

The opposite extreem is that the whole has absolutely no right to anything, not food, water or even air to breathe. All can be hoarded by the individual. And that the individual can do anything, even if it kills millions. I've never heard of anyone taking that extreem either.

The ultimate answer to your question is that it depends upon the aggregate opinion of each society for each and every property and point of policy. And of course, most opinions are entirely subjective.
User avatar
By Individualis
#1106421
But all needs are subjective. All need is determined by want. And want is ultimately subjective.

I only need money because I want to buy things and purchasing things requires me to spend money. If I don't want to buy anything, then I don't need money.

I only need air because I want to live and living requires breathing. If I don't want to live, then I don't need air.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1106455
Before going any further into this debate, I think it's important to distinguish between "common good" (what the people need) and "common wants" (what the people want).

For example, most North American households have a car, and desire better highways and more free parking.

This is a common want.

But it is far from the common good. It is pretty close to the biggest "common bad" that mankind has ever witnessed.

So along with the being sometimes in conflict with minority "good," the common good is sometimes in conflict with the common want.
User avatar
By Individualis
#1106507
All needs stem from desire, and desire is subjective. Your desire =/= my desire, therefore your perception of my need =/= my perception of my need. And there is no person more qualified than I am to make decisions regarding my own needs and wants.
User avatar
By Citizen J
#1109320
Quite true, Individualis, but the debate is about when your wants are in conflict with the good of everyone else.

If you want to cut down all the Sequoia trees for toothpicks, the common good is invoked to prevent you from doing so. When you want to strip mine and dump the waste into a river, the common good is invoked to prevent you from doing that.

The real debate is in just exactly where does one draw the line between the common good and the wants of the individual. Not in who is best to determine your wants.
User avatar
By Theodore
#1109538
In my view, the common good isn't the good of the community (a community can have no good separate from the good of its members), but rather the good of every individual member of the community.

These goods are often viewed as conflicting with each other; however, this is not the case. For instance, in Citizen J's example, dumping waste into a river would harm both you and everyone else in your community, and would be both a violation of the common and your personal good.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1109811
In the end, the common good is everyone's good.

But some people need to sacrifice more of their ego than others to reach this state of social equilibrium.

For example, rich people have to contribute more of their income than others to fund schools.
User avatar
By Theodore
#1109816
I disagree. The only thing people need to sacrifice is their mistaken beliefs about what is good for them. A socialist distribution of wealth would not harm the rich or their egos, just their fixed ideas about material wealth.

It is better to be a liberated man under socialism than a millionaire under capitalism.
By vero
#1111714
Life isn't good for people, it entertains them - that's the job description; wait to be entertained. And I mean that in all seriousness: it's either boredom, trancified work, logical/intuitive work, entertainment or bodily necessities... entertainment is the only one worth living for, the rest is useless to an ego... at least to my ego...
User avatar
By Gnote
#1111846
I have to take issue with the premise that Individualis has set with regard to needs and wants. At some point, to have any sort of constructive debate about this, you have to define a basic human need which is different than a want. Most people set this definition at the line between life and death. If you die, you're gone - the debate is moot if you die, and therefore we can define 'life' as a need that is independent of 'want'.

Therefore, the 'common good' is that which ensures the facilitation of the basic human need: life.

In the event that we don't define that 'need', and accept that everything is based on a desire, the answer to the initial inquiry is simple: in a democracy, the wants of the many will outstrip the wants of the few. Property and ownership rights are simply 'wants' perpetuated on the society by those who possess. There is therefore nothing immoral about removing private property and societies should seek to do so wherever the common good is served.
By Zyx
#1121856
I have to take issue with the premise that Individualis has set with regard to needs and wants. At some point, to have any sort of constructive debate about this, you have to define a basic human need which is different than a want. Most people set this definition at the line between life and death. If you die, you're gone - the debate is moot if you die, and therefore we can define 'life' as a need that is independent of 'want'.


Recap: It's stupid to say life is a "want" and not need.

I agree.

However no one seems to point out that the common good argument never leaves the basic argument of what life is. When the rich fund for housing for the poor it's not because the poor want houses or need houses it's just that life is defined along the lines of owning a house. Life is not simply just breathing and getting by. Without an education, you are not living is essentially the Common good stance. Or more generally; if one does not meet a standard of life than one is not living and it is up to the community to allow that person to meet that standard of life. Why is this opposed or seemingly bad? It's like the amount of licks to a tootsie pop--I do not believe we will ever know.

Now you can tell me that a slave in 1843 North America was living . . . and I would not say he was dead, but to call that living is shameful to your morality.

"There are more people that agree with me than there are that agree with you, so now I have the right to take what I need from you." Right?


I found this stupid, it's like the lone hyena who finds the dead giraffe in the jungle and claims his body while the lion tribe of 12 men and 7 women look on in confusion.
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1128816
Liberals like to bring up "the common good" as an excuse for their repeated violations of individual rights.
As a liberal the only place I ever heard anyone bring up the common good was in an Ayn Rand novel. Personally I wouldn't endorse the common good. But I would kick a dumbass smoker out of my work area or restuarant space. I'd refuse to support taxes for the medical bills of some dufus, helmetless bike-rider. I'd take the children away from any surviving neandrethals who continue beating them black and blue and senseless, or worse. And I'd rebel against my government if it continues murdering and torturing tens of thousands of poor, innocent, and defenseless people in the MiddleEast.
By Spider Jerusalem
#1131357
I like the way you think norapture. This is why i'm for sexual regulations. Because as citizens we pay taxes, the goverment owes us something for our hardwork and cooperation.

And I ask that our society be cleaner, more dignified, and more children-friendly.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:Act as if the world is watching you


If people did, there wouldn't be sixteen year old girls having rampant sex and shit. Something needs to be done. Apparently abortion has not been the answer, it promised to end spousal abuse, teenage pregnancy, and close the gap between the genders. It did no such thing.

If liberals had wanted to steralize then they should've done that from the start. I say we illegalize abortion and replace it with a mandatory sex liscence. Before you can even have sex legaly you have to pass a mental exam. Depending on how badly you fail, you either don't get your liscence till you take the test again, or even face sterilization.

Darwin's theory comrades.
By Zyx
#1131369
^ ^ ^ What?

:?: :?: :?:

WTF!?!?!?!

I do not believe that norapture was saying any of this.

or even face sterilization.


WTF?!?!?!?!?

This reminds me of the black codes from early post-reconstruction. "Fair" exams givin' to "Arbitrary" folk to see whether or not they can vote -- or here whether or not they are sterilized. I think if your tactics were employed America would be, legally, 100% white in 30 years.

Darwin's theory comrades.


If I may say, Darwin's theory did not involve human intervention. But even so.

WTF!!

Darwin should not be referred to since he claimed natural selection and not human selection. It has been shown that the natural means of evolution is more effective than the deliberate human means of evolution; compare Human to Mule. :muha2:

Fine
Last edited by Zyx on 03 Mar 2007 19:18, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Citizen J
#1131814
My general sentments generally fall in line with those of Kumattos.

And just how would such a license be enforced? Sterilization? Imposing such harshness upon people would require a pretty hard sell to justify. Essentially, you'd end up with kids having back ally abortions.

You cannot regulate teenage sex hormones any more than you can enact legal regulations on the suns output.

Good luck with that.
By Spider Jerusalem
#1132144
Sure you can, the goverment manages to regulate everything else we do.

Back ally abortions, oooh i'm so scared. People I never liked risking death because they want to be even stupidier and more selfish. Yeah, that's going to motivate me to think differantly. :roll:

You just got done saying things were subjective, yet automaticaly denounce my position as irrational and impossible. How can you say that untill it's been done?
User avatar
By Citizen J
#1132249
Not impossible. nothing is impossible. Just highly unlikely.

Irrational? not completely. But trying to supress the sex drive, especially among the most sexually driven of us all, is not something you should consider undertaking lightly. There's consequences, and then there are consequences.

The sexually repressed have a lot of energy just looking for an outlet - often resulting in violence.
extreem violence.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]