Download Collective Good

COLLECTIVE GOOD
Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Altruism, Community,
Individualism, Objectivism, and The State.
The collective good is, well, good
A just social order is needed for ethical life to flourish
Randy Cohen (syndicated ethics columnist, New York Times Magazine), The Good, The Bad, & The
Difference, 2002, p. 9
“Just as individual ethics can only be understood in relation to the society within which it is practiced, it is
also true that individual ethics behavior is far likelier to flourish within a just society. Indeed, it might be
argued that to lead an ethical life one must work to build a just society. That is, if most of us will behave
about as well as our neighbors, it is incumbent on us to create a decent neighborhood.”
The common good is greater than any individual benefit
Mortimer J. Adler (director, Institute for Philosophical Research; member, board of editors, Encyclopedia
Britannica), The Common Sense of Politics, 1971, p. 18
“The common good is the end to be served by political action and political institutions. The common good
— the good that is somehow shared or participated in by a number of individuals — would seem to be a
greater good than the good of any one individual. John Stuart Mill and the utilitarians have argued in a
similar manner. The general happiness, sometimes referred to as ‘the greatest good for the greatest
number,’ takes precedence over the happiness of any one individual.”
Duty to society leads to all social virtues
Thomas Reid (1710-1796; British philosopher; prof. of philosophy, Univ. of Glasgow), in Morals and Values,
ed. by Marcus G. Singer, 1977, p. 66
“No man is born for himself only. Every man, therefore, ought to consider himself as a member of the
common society of mankind, and of those subordinate societies to which he belongs, such as family,
friends, neighborhood, country, and to do as much good as he can, and as little hurt to the societies of which
he is a part. This axiom leads directly to the practice of every social virtue, and indirectly to the virtues of
self-government, by which only we can be qualified for discharging the duty we owe to society.”
Civilization and social progress can be measured by the results of institutions
Ralph Barton Perry (1879-1957; American neo-realist philosopher and prof. at Harvard), The Moral
Economy, 1909, p. 147-148
“It is possible to measure progress because of the persistence throughout the whole course of human history
of certain identical interests and purposes. When such an interest or purpose is sufficiently broad in scope,
and gets itself permanently embodied, it is called an institution. Thus government embodies the need of the
general regulation of interests within the social community. Education is due to the individual’s prolonged
period of helplessness and dependence, and the need of assimilating him to the order of his time. Science is
man’s knowledge of the ways of nature in detail, when this is recorded, organized, and preserved as a
permanent utility answering to the permanent need of adaptation. And religion expresses in outer form the
human need of reckoning with the final day of judgment, of establishing right relations with the powers that
underlie and overrule the proximate sphere of life. There is no limited number of institutions, but these are
the notable examples. Government, education, science, and religion are fixed moral necessities. They arise
out of those conditions of life which are general and constant. Hence each has a history coextensive with the
history of society itself. And since the function of each remains identical throughout, the adequacy with
which at any given time it fulfills that function may be taken as a measure of civilization.”
Moral law is not intended to protect society
Hans J. Morgenthau (prof. of political science, Univ. of Chicago), “Quisling Show,” The New Republic,
Prager’s LD Vault: Collective Good · Revised July 2009 · © 2009 John R. Prager
October 24, 1994, p. 9
“The moral law is not a utilitarian instrument aimed at the protection of society, even though its observance
has that effect.”
Working for the collective good is part of the basic nature of being human
Michael Tomasello (co-director, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology), “How Are Humans
Unique?” The New York Times Magazine, May 25, 2008, p. 15
“When you look at apes and children in situations requiring them to put their heads together, a subtle but
significant difference emerges. We have observed that children, but not chimpanzees, expect and even
demand that others who have committed themselves to a joint activity stay involved and not shirk their
duties. When children want to opt out of an activity, they recognize the existence of an obligation to help the
group — they know that they must, in their own way, ‘take leave’ to make amends. Humans structure their
collaborative actions with joint goals and shared commitments.”
The collective good is a sham or detrimental
Community and the common good are, at most, instrumental values
Mortimer J. Adler (director, Institute for Philosophical Research), Ten Philosophical Mistakes, 1985, p. 141
“Because each human being is an end to be served, not a means to be used, the organized community, in
relation to its members, is a means, not an end. The happiness of the individual person is the one and only
ultimate goal or final end in this life. It is a common good in the sense that it is the same for all human
beings.”
The common good cannot be achieved by individuals
Mortimer J. Adler (director, Institute for Philosophical Research), Ten Philosophical Mistakes, 1985, p. 141
“The common good or general welfare is only the proximate goal at which a good society and a just
government should aim. The goal achieved serves as a means to society’s ultimate goal — the individual
happiness of each of society’s members or the general happiness of all. The crucial point here is that
individuals by themselves cannot work directly for the general happiness — the happiness of all other
persons in the society in which they live. They can do so indirectly only by working with others for the
common good or general welfare of the political community, which itself is a means to the happiness of
each and every individual.”
The test of a social institution is: Is it just?
John Rawls (1921-2002; American social and political philosopher; philosophy instructor, Cornell Univ. and
Harvard), A Theory of Justice, 1971, p. 3
“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant
and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how
efficient and well-arranged must be must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.”
Seeking the common good leads to oppressive social orders
Michael Novak (former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission; American Enterprise
Institute chair in religion and public policy), “A New Vision of Man: How Christianity has Changed Political
Economy,” Imprimis, May 1995, p. 3
“In parallel, a community that refuses to recognize the autonomy of individual persons often uses persons
as means to ‘the common good,’ rather than treating persons as ends in themselves. Such communities are
coercive and tyrannical.”
Collective action is a direct challenge to the Categorical Imperative
Charles Fried (Prof. of Law, Harvard Law School), “Is Liberty Possible?” from The Tanner Lectures on
Human Values, Delivered at Stanford University, May 14 and l8, l981, p. 95; Online:
www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/fried82.pdf, accessed May 7, 2008
“Collective claims by definition are claims by the many, so that a lone individual lacks the brute power to
Prager’s LD Vault: Collective Good · Revised July 2009 · © 2009 John R. Prager
resist them. At worst they can overwhelm an individual’s efforts to live his life according to his judgment
and choices. At best he may be fortunate enough to belong to a coalition which shares his vision. Most
likely he will have to compromise that vision in order to be part of a successful coalition. Now the prospect
of joining successful coalitions improves one’s prospects of attaining his goals, but only by imposing those
goals on others — in Kant’s phrase, by using others as a means to one’s ends. Thus coalitions are
compromises in which we are partially overwhelmed and partially seek to overwhelm others.”
Communitarianism is a positive force
Communitarianism is good for society and for the individual
Amitai Etzioni (German-Israeli-American sociologist, known for his work on socioeconomics and
communitarianism; founder of the Communitarian Network), “Spent,” The New Republic, June 17, 2009, p.
22
“Communitarianism refers to investing time and energy in relations with the other, including family,
friends, and members of one’s community. The term also encompasses service to the common good, such
as volunteering, national service, and politics. Communitarian life is not centered around altruism but
around mutuality, in the sense that deeper and thicker involvement with the other is rewarding to both the
recipient and the giver. Indeed, numerous studies show that communitarian pursuits breed deep
contentment. A study of 50-year-old men shows that those with friendships are far less likely to experience
heart disease. Another shows that life satisfaction in older adults is higher for those who participate in
community service.”
Communitarianism is neutral or detrimental
Prager’s LD Vault: Collective Good · Revised July 2009 · © 2009 John R. Prager