Word meaning for the common good

In philosophy, economics, and political science, the common good (also Commonwealth, general welfare, or public benefit) is either what is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community, or alternatively, what is achieved by citizenship, collective action, and active participation in the realm of politics and public service. The concept of the common good differs significantly among philosophical doctrines.^[1] Early conceptions of the common good were set out by Ancient Greek philosophers, including Aristotle and Plato. One understanding of the common good rooted in Aristotle’s philosophy remains in common usage today, referring to what one contemporary scholar calls the «good proper to, and attainable only by, the community, yet individually shared by its members.»^[2]

The concept of common good developed through the work of political theorists, moral philosophers, and public economists, including Thomas Aquinas, Niccolò Machiavelli, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, James Madison, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes, John Rawls, and many other thinkers. In contemporary economic theory, a common good is any good which is rivalrous yet non-excludable, while the common good, by contrast, arises in the subfield of welfare economics and refers to the outcome of a social welfare function. Such a social welfare function, in turn, would be rooted in a moral theory of the good (such as utilitarianism). Social choice theory aims to understand processes by which the common good may or may not be realized in societies through the study of collective decision rules. Public choice theory applies microeconomic methodology to the study of political science in order to explain how private interests affect political activities and outcomes.

Definition[edit]

The term «common good» has been used in many disparate ways and escapes a single definition. Most philosophical conceptions of the common good fall into one of two families: substantive and procedural. According to substantive conceptions, the common good is that which is shared by and beneficial to all or most members of a given community: particular substantive conceptions will specify precisely what factors or values are beneficial and shared. According to procedural formulations, by contrast, the common good consists of the outcome that is achieved through collective participation in the formation of a shared will. It is when one another respects others dignity and rights.

In the history of moral and political thought[edit]

Historical overview[edit]

Under one name or another, the common good has been a recurring theme throughout the history of political philosophy.^[3] As one contemporary scholar observes, Aristotle used the idea of «the common interest» (to koinei sympheron, in Greek) as the basis for his distinction between «right» constitutions, which are in the common interest, and «wrong» constitutions, which are in the interest of rulers;^[4] Saint Thomas Aquinas held «the common good» (bonum commune, in Latin) to be the goal of law and government;^[5] John Locke declared that «the peace, safety, and public good of the people» are the goals of political society, and further argued that «the well being of the people shall be the supreme law»;^[6] David Hume contended that «social conventions» are adopted and given moral support in virtue of the fact that they serve the «public» or «common» interest;^[7] James Madison wrote of the «public,» «common,» or «general» good as closely tied with justice and declared that justice is the end of government and civil society;^[8] and Jean-Jacques Rousseau understood «the common good» (le bien commun, in French) to be the object of a society’s general will and the highest end pursued by government.^[9][10]

Though these thinkers differed significantly in their views of what the common good consists in, as well as over what the state should do to promote it, they nonetheless agreed that the common good is the end of government, that it is a good of all the citizens, and that no government should become the «perverted servant of special interests,»^[10] whether these special interests be understood as Aristotle’s «interest of the rulers,» Locke’s «private good,» Hume’s and Madison’s «interested factions,» or Rousseau’s «particular wills.»^[10]

Ancient Greeks[edit]

For the Ancient Greeks, the Common Good was the flourishing of the hierarchical network of people, known as the polis (one’s city, or state).
The phrase «common good» then, doesn’t appear in texts of Plato, but instead the phrase «the good of a city.»^[11] In The Republic, Plato’s character Socrates contends repeatedly that a particular common goal exists in politics and society,^[12] and that that goal is the same as the goal for a flourishing human being, namely, to be a philosopher king,^[13] ruled by the highest good, Reason, rather than one of Plato’s four lesser goods: honor-seeking, money-making, pleasure-seeking, or empassioned addiction. For Plato, the best political order is one in which the entire society submits to the dictates of the leaders’ faculty of Reason, even communistically holding possessions, wives, and children in common,^[14] creating a «cohesion and unity» that «result[s] from the common feelings of pleasure and pain which you get when all members of a society are glad or sorry for the same successes and failures.»^[15]

Plato’s student Aristotle, considered by many to be the father of the idea of a common good, uses the concept of «the common interest» (to koinei sympheron, in Greek) as the basis for his distinction between his three «right» constitutions, which are in the common interest, and «wrong» constitutions, which are in the interest of rulers.^[16][17][3] To Aristotle, Plato is wrong about the desire to simply impose top-down unity;^[18] for Aristotle, a common good is synthesized upwardly/teleologically from the lesser goods of individuals, and their various kinds of larger-and-larger partnerships: marital couple, or parent-over-child, or master-over-slave; household; then village; then state.^[19] In this teleological view, the good stems from objective facts about human life and purpose, which may vary, depending upon peoples’ occupations, virtue-levels, etc.^[12] However, noting that only citizens have the salvation (common good) of the city at heart,^[20] Aristotle argues that, regardless of form of government,^[16][17][21] those who have more of a rational understanding of the needs of the state’s salvation, are entitled to a greater share in administering and determining justice, within the light of its common good,^[22][23] than those who have less, or no such understanding or concern for it, such as selfish despots and political factions,^[24] as well as uneducated artisans and freedmen, women and children, slaves, etc.^[25][26] More than this, Aristotle argues that rational discourse itself is what the state’s Common Good relies upon,^[27] identifying those who lack it, as «slaves by nature,»^[28][29] while those who excel in it are nearly divine,^[21][30][31] possessing in themselves the whole purpose for which states exist, namely, the perfectly complete good/blessed life.^[32][33] In his Nicomachean Ethics then, Aristotle ties up the Common Good of the state, with that of friendship, implying by this, that friendly, rational discourse is the primary activity by which citizens and rulers bring about the Common Good, both amongst themselves, and so far as it involves their inferiors.^[34] According to one common contemporary usage, rooted in Aristotle’s philosophy, common good then refers to «a good proper to, and attainable, only by the community, yet individually shared in, by its members.»^[2]

Renaissance Florence[edit]

During the 15th and 16th centuries, the common good was one of several important themes of political thought in Renaissance Florence. The thought goes back to Thomas Aquinas theory of common good being virulent in whole premodern Europe.^[35] In a later work, Niccolò Machiavelli speaks of the bene commune (common good) or comune utilità (common utility), which refers to the general well-being of a community as a whole, however he mentions this term only 19 times throughout his works.^[36] In key passages of the Discourses on Livy, he indicates that «the common good (comune utilità) . . . is drawn from a free way of life (vivere libero)» but is not identical with it.^[36][37] Elsewhere in the Discourses, freedom, safety and dignity are explicitly stated to be elements of the common good and some form of property and family life are also implied.^[36] Furthermore, the common good brought by freedom includes wealth, economic prosperity, security, enjoyment and good life.^[36] It is important to note, however, that though Machiavelli speaks of an instrumental relationship between freedom and common good, the general well-being is not precisely identical with political freedom: elsewhere in the Discourses, Machiavelli argues that an impressive level of common good can be achieved by sufficiently autocratic rulers.^[36] Nevertheless, Machiavelli’s common good can be viewed as acting for the good of the majority, even if that means to oppress others through the endeavor.^[36][38] Machiavelli’s common good is viewed by some scholars as not as «common», as he frequently states that the end of republics is to crush their neighbors.^[39][40]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau[edit]

In Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract, composed in the mid-18th century, Rousseau argues that society can function only to the extent that individuals have interests in common, and that the end goal of any state is the realization of the common good. He further posits that the common good can be identified and implemented only by heeding the general will of a political community, specifically as expressed by that community’s sovereign. Rousseau maintains that the general will always tends toward the common good, though he concedes that democratic deliberations of individuals will not always express the general will. Furthermore, Rousseau distinguished between the general will and the will of all, stressing that while the latter is simply the sum total of each individual’s desires, the former is the «one will which is directed towards their common preservation and general well-being.»^[41] Political authority, to Rousseau, should be understood as legitimate only if it exists according to the general will and toward the common good. The pursuit of the common good, then, enables the state to act as a moral community.^[1]

John Rawls’s Theory of Justice[edit]

John Rawls defines the common good as «certain general conditions that are…equally to everyone’s advantage». In his Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality, applied to the basic structure of a well-ordered society, which will specify exactly such general conditions. Starting with an artificial device he calls the original position, Rawls defends two particular principles of justice by arguing that these are the positions reasonable persons would choose were they to choose principles from behind a veil of ignorance. Such a «veil» is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves so they cannot tailor principles to their own advantage. According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all. If an individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls claims that those in the original position would all adopt a «maximin» strategy which would maximize the prospects of the least well-off individual or group. In this sense, Rawls’s understanding of the common good is intimately tied with the well-being of the least advantaged.
Rawls claims that the parties in the original position would adopt two governing principles, which would then regulate the assignment of rights and duties and regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages across society. The First Principle of Justice states that «»First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others».^[42] The Second Principle of Justice provides that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged such that «(a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle» (the difference principle); and «(b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of ‘fair equality of opportunity'».^[43]

In non-Western moral and political thought[edit]

The idea of a common good plays a role in Confucian political philosophy, which on most interpretations stresses the importance of the subordinination of individual interests to group or collective interests,^[44] or at the very least, the mutual dependence between the flourishing of the individual and the flourishing of the group.^[45] In Islamic political thought, many modern thinkers have identified conceptions of the common good while endeavoring to ascertain the fundamental or universal principles underlying divine shari‘a law.^[46] These fundamentals or universal principles have been largely identified with the «objectives» of the shari‘a (maqāṣid al-sharī‘a), including concepts of the common good or public interest (maṣlaḥa ‘āmma, in modern terminology).^[46] A notion of the common good arises in contemporary Islamic discussions of the distinction between the fixed and the flexible (al-thābit wa-l-mutaghayyir), especially as it relates to modern Islamic conceptions of tolerance, equality, and citizenship: according to some, for instance, universal principles carry greater weight than specific injunctions of the Qur’an, and in case of conflict, can even supersede or suspend explicit textual injunctions (naṣṣ) if this serves the common good.^[46]

In political economic theory[edit]

In economics, the terms “public good” and “common good” have technical definitions. A public good is a good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. A common good is simply non-excludable. A simple typology illustrates the differences between various kinds of goods:

	Excludable	Non-excludable
Rivalrous	Private goods food, clothing, cars, parking spaces	Common-pool resources fish stocks, timber, coal, free public transport
Non-rivalrous	Club goods cinemas, private parks, satellite television, public transport	Public goods free-to-air television, air, national defense, free and open-source software

The field of welfare economics studies social well-being. The approach begins with the specification of a social welfare function. The choice of a social welfare function is rooted in an ethical theory. A utilitarian social welfare function weights the well-being of each individual equally, while a Rawlsian social welfare function only considers the welfare of the least well-off individual.^[47]

Neoclassical economic theory provides two conflicting lenses for thinking about the genesis of the common good, two distinct sets of microfoundations. On one view, the common good arises due to social gains from cooperation. Such a view might appeal to the Prisoner’s dilemma to illustrate how cooperation can result in superior welfare outcomes. Moreover, a cooperative equilibrium is stable in an iterated Prisoner’s dilemma that is played for an indefinite period of time. Under these conditions, an individual does best by pursuing the course of action that is also optimal for society.^[48]

On the other hand, economic theory typically points to social gains from competition as a rationale for the use of markets. Thus, Smith described the “invisible hand,” whereby the mechanism of the market converts individuals’ self-interested activity into gains for society.^[49] This insight is formalized in the First Theorem of Welfare Economics. However, economic theory also points to market failures, including the underprovision of public goods by markets and the failure of self-interested individuals to internalize externalities.^[50] Because of these factors, purely self-interested behaviour often detracts from the common good.

There is an important conceptual difference between the sense of «a» public good, or public «goods» in economics, and the more generalized idea of «the public good» (in the sense of common good, public benefit, or public interest), «a shorthand signal for shared benefit at a societal level».^[51][52][53]
In a non-economic sense, the term is often used to describe something that is useful for the public generally, such as education, although this is not a «public good» in the economic sense. However, services like education exhibit jointness of supply, i.e. the situation in which the cost of supplying a good to many users is the same, or nearly the same, as supplying it to one user. Public goods also exhibit jointness of supply, albeit with no diminishment of the benefits with increased consumption.

[edit]

Social choice theory studies collective decision rules. Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, an important result in social choice theory, states that no aggregative mechanism of collective choice (restricted to ordinal inputs) can consistently transform individual preferences into a collective preference-ordering, across the universal domain of possible preference profiles, while also satisfying a set of minimal normative criteria of rationality and fairness.^[54] The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem further demonstrates that non-dictatorial voting systems are inevitably subject to strategic manipulation of outcomes.^[55][56]

William H. Riker articulates the standard public choice interpretation of social choice theory, arguing that Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem “forces us to doubt that the content of ‘social welfare’ or the ‘public interest’ can ever be discovered by amalgamating individual value judgments. It even leads us to suspect that no such thing as the ‘public interest’ exists, aside from the subjective (and hence dubious) claims of self-proclaimed saviors.”^[57] Thus, Riker defends a “liberal” conception of democracy, which centers on the role of constitutional checks on government. Public choice theorists have tended to share this approach. Buchanan and Tullock pursued this program in developing the field of «constitutional political economy» in their book The Calculus of Consent.

More recent work in social choice theory, however, has demonstrated that Arrow’s impossibility result can be obviated at little or no normative cost. Amartya Sen, for instance, argues that a range of social choice mechanisms emerge unscathed given certain reasonable restrictions on the domain of admissible preference profiles.^[58] In particular, requiring that preferences are single-peaked on a single dimension ensures a Condorcet winner. Moreover, many of Riker’s empirical claims have been refuted.^[59]

Public choice theory[edit]

Public choice theory (sometimes called «positive political theory») applies microeconomic methodology to the study of political science in order to explain how private interests inform political activities. Whereas welfare economics, in line with classical political economy, typically assumes a public-interest perspective on policymaking, public choice analysis adopts a private-interest perspective in order to identify how the objectives of policymakers affect policy outcomes. Public choice analysis thus diagnoses deviations from the common good resulting from activities such as rent-seeking. In The Logic of Collective Action, Mancur Olson argues that public goods will tend to be underprovided due to individuals’ incentives to free-ride.^[60] Anthony Downs provided an application of this logic to the theory of voting, identifying the paradox of voting whereby rational individuals prefer to abstain from voting, because the marginal cost exceeds the private marginal benefit.^[61] Downs argues further that voters generally prefer to remain uninformed due to «rational ignorance.»

Public choice scholarship can have more constructive applications. For instance, Elinor Ostrom’s study of schemes for the regulation of common property resources resulted in the discovery of mechanisms for overcoming the tragedy of the commons.^[62]

In many countries of the Commonwealth, charitable organizations must demonstrate that they provide a public benefit.^[63]

In democratic theory[edit]

In deliberative democracy, the common good is taken to be a regulative ideal.^[64] In other words, participants in democratic deliberation aim at the realization of the common good. This feature distinguishes deliberative democracy from aggregative conceptions of democracy, which focus solely on the aggregation of preferences. In contrast to aggregative conceptions, deliberative democracy emphasizes the processes by which agents justify political claims on the basis of judgments about the common good. Epistemic democracy, a leading contemporary approach to deliberative democracy, advances a cognitivist account of the common good.^[65]

[edit]

One of the earliest references in Christian literature to the concept of the common good is found in the Epistle of Barnabas: «Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already [fully] justified, but gather instead to seek together the common good.»^[66]

The concept is strongly present in Augustine of Hippo’s magnum opus City of God. Book XIX of this, the main locus of Augustine’s normative political thought, is focused on the question, ‘Is the good life social?’ In other words, ‘Is human wellbeing found in the good of the whole society, the common good?’ Chapters 5–17 of Book XIX address this question. Augustine’s emphatic answer is yes (see start of chap. 5).

Augustine’s understanding was taken up and, under the influence of Aristotle, developed by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’s conception of the common good became standard in Roman Catholic moral theology.

Against that background, the common good became a central concept in the modern tradition of Catholic social teaching, beginning with the foundational document, Rerum novarum, a papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, issued in 1891. This addressed the crisis of the conditions of industrial workers in Europe and argued for a position different from both laissez-faire capitalism and socialism. In this letter, Pope Leo guarantees the right to private property while insisting on the role of collective bargaining to establish a living wage.

Contemporary Catholic social teaching on the common good is summarised in the 2004 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, chapter 4, part II.^[67] Quoting the Second Vatican Council document, Gaudium et spes (1965), this says, «According to its primary and broadly accepted sense, the common good indicates ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily'» (#164, quoting Gaudium et spes, #26; italics original).

The Compendium later gives statements that communicate what can be seen as a partly different, more classical, sense of the concept – as not only «social conditions» that enable persons to reach fulfilment, but as the end goal of human life. «[T]he common good [is] the good of all people and of the whole person… The human person cannot find fulfilment in himself, that is, apart from the fact that he exists «with» others and «for» others» (#165; italics original). «The goal of life in society is in fact the historically attainable common good» (#168).

The Roman Catholic International Theological Commission drew attention to these two partly different understandings of the common good in its 2009 publication, In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New Look at the Natural Law. It referred to them as «two levels» of the common good.^[68]

Another relevant document is Veritatis Splendor, a papal encyclical by Pope John Paul II, issued in 1993 to combat the relaxation of moral norms and the political corruption (see Paragraph 98) that affects millions of persons. In this letter, Pope John Paul describes the characteristics and virtues that political leadership should require, which are truthfulness, honesty, fairness, temperance and solidarity (as described in paragraph 98 to 100), given that truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.

In contemporary politics[edit]

United States[edit]

In contemporary American politics, language of the common good (or public wealth) is sometimes adopted by political actors on the progressive left to describe their values. Jonathan Dolhenty argues that one should distinguish in American politics between the common good, which may «be shared wholly by each individual in the family without its becoming a private good for any individual family member», and the collective good, which, «though possessed by all as a group, is not really participated in by the members of a group. It is actually divided up into several private goods when apportioned to the different individual members.»^[69] First described by Michael Tomasky in The American Prospect magazine^[70] and John Halpin at the Center for American Progress,^[71] the American political understanding of the common good has grown in recent times. The liberal magazine The Nation^[72] and the Rockridge Institute,^[73] among others, have identified the common good as a salient political message for progressive candidates.^[74] In addition, non-partisan advocacy groups like Common Good are championing political reform efforts to support the common good.^[75]

Given the central concern for sustainable development in an increasingly interdependent world, education and knowledge should thus be considered global common goods. This means that the creation of knowledge, its control, acquisition, validation, and use, are common to all people as a collective social endeavour.^[76]

Common Goods for Health[edit]

Common Goods for Health (CGH) can be defined as population related interventions or activities that require cumulative finances from either donors or government on the basis of two conditions. The first condition is contribution in economic progress and health. The second condition includes emphasis on public or common goods and large social externalities with clear economic foundation for health interventions based on market failures. The common goods for health must produce enormous health benefits to communities and not financed through market forces. Few examples of common goods for health are risk surveillance, disease control policies and strategies, vector control and public health emergency operation response services.^[77]

History[edit]

In the mid-20th century, the elites displayed a motivation for the Common Goods that was intended for health, and decisions were based on the elite rather than the public, since there was no public interest in the

After the 1950s, the government increasingly began to see the concept of addressing mutual issues for the benefit of the citizens, but it has yet to be completely adopted and will be much more compatible with appropriate expenditure.^[78]

See also[edit]

Sources[edit]

 This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0 (license statement/permission). Text taken from Rethinking Education: Towards a global common good?​, 80–81, UNESCO. UNESCO. To learn how to add open license text to Wikipedia articles, please see this how-to page. For information on reusing text from Wikipedia, please see the terms of use.

References[edit]

External links[edit]

• The common good in Catholic Social Teaching: exposition at VPlater project

for the common good — перевод на русский

Показать ещё примеры для «для общего блага»…

Показать ещё примеры для «на общее благо»…

“Common good” in political science refers to anything that benefits and is naturally shared by all members of a given community, compared to things that benefit the private good of individuals or sectors of society. In some cases, securing things serving the common good requires collective action and participation in the political process.

Common Good Definition

As normally used today, the phrase “common good” refers to those facilities or institutions that all or most members of a community agree are necessary to satisfy certain interests they have in common. A few of the things making up the common good in a modern democracy might include basic rights and freedoms, a transportation system, cultural institutions, police and public safety, a judicial system, an electoral system, public education, clean air and water, safe and ample food supply, and national defense. For example, people might say, “The new bridge will serve the common good,” or “We will all profit from the new convention center.” Because the systems and facilities of the common good impact all members of the society, it stands to reason that most social problems are in some way tied to how well or poorly these systems and facilities are working.

From an economic and philosophical standpoint, it is assumed that providing for the common good will require a degree of sacrifice by many members of the society. Such sacrifice often comes in the form of paying higher taxes or costs of industrial production. In an article on economic and social problems in American society, Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson once wrote, “We face a choice between a society where people accept modest sacrifices for a common goal or a more contentious society where groups selfishly protect their own benefits.” Many times, achieving the common good in modern societies requires overcoming the human tendency to “look out for Number One first.” 

History

Despite its increasing importance in modern society, the concept of the common good was first mentioned over two thousand years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. As early as the second century AD, Catholic religious tradition defined the common good as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau in ‘The Social Contract’

In his 1762 book The Social Contract, Swiss philosopher, writer, and political theorist Jean-Jacques Rousseau argues that in successful societies, the “general will” of the people will always be directed toward achieving the collectively agreed common good. Rousseau contrasts the will of all—the total of the desires of each individual—with the general will—the “one will which is directed towards their common preservation and general well-being.” Rousseau further contends that political authority, in the form of laws, will be viewed as legitimate and enforceable only if it is applied according to the general will of the people and directed toward their common good.

Adam Smith in ‘Wealth of Nations’

Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith, in his classic 1776 book Wealth of Nations, argues that in systems of “natural liberty” where people are allowed through the “invisible hand” of a free-market economy to pursue their own self-interest, “Individual ambition serves the common good.” In saying this, Smith contends that “universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people,” will ultimately result in the advancement of the common good.

John Rawls in ‘Theory of Justice’

Much like Aristotle, American moral and political philosopher John Rawls considered the public common good to be the heart of a healthy moral, economic, and political system. In his 1971 book Theory of Justice, Rawls defines the common good as “certain general conditions that are … equally to everyone’s advantage.” In this context, Rawls equates the common good to the combination of equally shared social conditions, such as basic liberties and fair economic opportunity, that come with citizenship.

Like Adam Smith, Rawls further contends that for the common good to be realized, the society bears a shared responsibility to ensure that the well-being of the least economically advantaged class is maintained. Indeed, his Second Principle of Justice provides that for the common good to be persevered, all social and economic inequalities must be prioritized so that they are “of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society,” and that policymaking “offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”

Practical Modern Examples

Achieving a common good has always required a degree of individual sacrifice. Today, the trade-offs and sacrifices necessary for the common good often involve paying taxes, accepting personal inconvenience, or giving up certain long-held cultural beliefs and privileges. While occasionally offered voluntarily, these sacrifices and trade-offs are usually incorporated into laws and public policy. Some modern examples of the common good and the sacrifices involved in achieving them include:

Public Infrastructure Improvement

More often than not, public infrastructure improvements—such as safer and more convenient highways and public transportation facilities; new water, sewer, and power lines; dams and reservoirs; and cultural facilities—requires the payment of new or increased taxes. Additionally, eminent domain laws give the government the right to seize private property, in exchange for just compensation, when the property is needed for infrastructure facilities serving the common good like public schools, parks, transit operations, and public utilities. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, expanded the reach of eminent domain to allow governments to seize private property to be used for the redevelopment or revitalization of economically depressed areas. In this decision, the Court further defined the term “public use” to describe public benefit or general welfare, long considered elements of the common good.

Civil Rights and Racial Equality

In the realm of sacrificing assumed privileges and deeply-seated cultural beliefs for the common good, few examples stand out like the struggle for racial equality and civil rights in the United States. Even after the Civil War, and the end of the enslavement of Black people through the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, implementing the cultural sacrifices demanded by the civil rights movement of the 1960s did not come without extensive government intervention. Rarely occurring voluntarily, surrendering long-held vestiges of “white privilege” required the force of law applied on a historic scale, including the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

Environmental Quality

Today there is little debate that clean air and water, along with an abundance of natural resources, benefit the common good. However, the process of ensuring environmental quality has historically and is likely to continue to require government intervention coupled with individual sacrifice. Since the early 1960s, Americans have expressed increasing concern over the detrimental impact of industrial growth on the environment. These concerns were addressed through the hard-fought passage of a series of laws including the Clean Air Act of 1963; the Clean Water Act of 1972; the Endangered Species Act of 1973; and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. Applying these laws and the hundreds of often controversial federal regulations necessary to enforce them results in considerable economic sacrifice on the part of the industrial sector. For example, automobile manufactures have been forced to comply with a series of costly fuel economy and air pollution regulations. Yet, environmentalists argue that the government bears a societal obligation to protect the natural environment for the common good, even if doing so requires the sacrifice of some economic growth.

Sources and Further Reference

• Velasquez, Manuel, et al. “The Common Good.” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, August 2, 2014, https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/the-common-good/.
• Skousen, Mark. “It All Started with Adam.” Foundation for Economic Education, May 1, 2001, https://fee.org/articles/it-all-started-with-adam/.
• Samuelson, Robert J. “How Our American Dream Unraveled.” Newsweek, March 1, 1992, https://www.newsweek.com/how-our-american-dream-unraveled-195900.
• Tierney, William G. “Governance and the Public Good.” State University of New York Press, 2006, https://muse.jhu.edu/book/5104.
• Reich, Robert B. “The Common Good.” Knopf, February 20, 2018, ISBN: 978-0525520498
• Rawls, John. “Theory of Justice.” Harvard University Press, 1971, ISBN: 0674000781.

These examples may contain rude words based on your search.

These examples may contain colloquial words based on your search.

для общего блага

ради общего блага

на общее благо

во имя общего блага

на благо

для всеобщего блага

об общем благе

за общее благо

ради всеобщего блага

во имя всеобщего блага

к общему благу

на общую пользу

в общих интересах

для общей пользы

для достижения общего блага

People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good…

Далее говорится: Люди должны прийти и вместе развернуть эти системы для общего блага».

How greedy, irrational, and limited in our ability to act collectively for the common good.

Насколько алчны, иррациональны и ограничены в способности действовать сообща для общего блага.

Many leaders of states seem to be less committed to working together for the common good.

Многие лидеры государств, кажется, стали менее привержены совместной работе ради общего блага.

In such difficult moments good political will allows launching mechanisms of decision-making for the common good.

В такие трудные моменты именно добрая политическая воля позволяет ради общего блага запустить механизмы решения.

These are all the questions that need to be answered if we want multilateral institutions to continue serving for the common good.

Необходимо ответить на все эти вопросы, если мы хотим, чтобы многосторонние учреждения продолжали служить на общее благо.

More complete recovery will become only when you join to active global civil activities for the common good.

Более полное выздоровление наступит лишь только тогда, когда вы подключитесь к активной глобальной гражданской деятельности на общее благо.

The triumphs of our education system depended on the formation of a socially interconnected community of citizens working together for the common good of all.

Триумфы нашей системы образования зависели от формирования социально взаимосвязанного сообщества граждан, работающих вместе для общего блага всех.

The protocol restrains participants with malicious intentions and rewards those who seek to develop a network for the common good.

Протокол сдерживает участников со злонамеренными целями и вознаграждает тех, кто стремится развивать сеть для общего блага.

At such a moment when such a threat looms over domestic sports, you need to unite and work for the common good.

В такой момент, когда над отечественным спортом нависла такая угроза, нужно объединиться и работать на общее благо.

He is ready to stand up for his beloved and to reconcile entire peoples for the common good.

Он готов заступиться за любимую и примирить между собой целые народы ради общего блага.

And for the common good are obliged to preserve international friendship as an inheritance of our fathers and grandfathers.

И для общего блага обязаны сохранить интернациональную дружбу как наследство наших отцов и дедов.

Society wants to believe that technology will be used for the common good.

Общество хочет верить, что технологии будут использоваться для общего блага.

The basic law guaranteed freedom of private enterprises and private property as basic rights to be exercised for the common good.

Законодательная база гарантирует свободу частного предпринимательства и частной собственности в качестве основополагающих прав, осуществляемых на общее благо.

In addition, illicit operations siphon off vast sums that could have been used for the common good.

Кроме того, незаконные операции ведут к утечке огромных средств, которые могли бы быть использованы на общее благо.

Our experience prompts us to subscribe to that vision for the common good.

Наш опыт подсказывает нам придерживаться этого подхода ради общего блага.

Smith had not envisaged market forces and enlightened self-interest working for the common good without strong moral grounding, self-discipline and justice.

Смит не предполагал, что рыночные силы и просвещенный эгоизм будут работать на общее благо без опоры на высокие моральные принципы, самодисциплину и идеи справедливости.

Here, it’s important to publish stories, that will make clients understand that the company works for the common good.

Здесь важно публиковать такие истории, прочитав которые, клиент поймет, что компания работает для общего блага.

There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.

Есть множество ограничений, которым каждый человек неизбежно подвергается ради общего блага.

We agreed the need to work closely in dealing with these issues for the common good.

Мы согласились в необходимости работать тесно в борьбе с этими проблемами на общее благо.

In addition, the main profit will remain within the family, and each of the relatives works for the common good.

Кроме того, основная прибыль будет оставаться в пределах семьи, а каждый из родственников трудится для общего блага.

No results found for this meaning.

Results: 928. Exact: 928. Elapsed time: 188 ms.

Documents

Corporate solutions

Conjugation

Synonyms

Grammar Check

Help & about

Word index: 1-300, 301-600, 601-900

Expression index: 1-400, 401-800, 801-1200

Phrase index: 1-400, 401-800, 801-1200

Полезное

Словосочетания

Автоматический перевод

общее благо, всеобщее благо, общественная польза, общественное благо

Перевод по словам

common  — общий, распространенный, обычный, частый, общее, выгон, пустырь, здравый смысл
good  — хороший, добрый, благой, хорошо, добро, благо, польза

Примеры

Educalingo cookies are used to personalize ads and get web traffic statistics. We also share information about the use of the site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.

Download the app
educalingo

Providing for the common good, making people feel secure in their communities and homes — this is the central job of government. it’s why all of us are here serving our state and our people.

John Baldacci

PRONUNCIATION OF COMMON GOOD

GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY OF COMMON GOOD

Common good is a noun.

WHAT DOES COMMON GOOD MEAN IN ENGLISH?

Definition of common good in the English dictionary

The definition of common good in the dictionary is the part of the property of a Scottish burgh, in the form of land or funds, that is at the disposal of the community.

TRANSLATION OF COMMON GOOD

Find out the translation of common good to 25 languages with our English multilingual translator.

TENDENCIES OF USE OF THE TERM «COMMON GOOD»

The term «common good» is quite widely used and occupies the 47.268 position in our list of most widely used terms in the English dictionary.

Principal search tendencies and common uses of common good

FREQUENCY OF USE OF THE TERM «COMMON GOOD» OVER TIME

10 QUOTES WITH «COMMON GOOD»

Famous quotes and sentences with the word common good.

10 ENGLISH BOOKS RELATING TO «COMMON GOOD»

Discover the use of common good in the following bibliographical selection. Books relating to common good and brief extracts from same to provide context of its use in English literature.

10 NEWS ITEMS WHICH INCLUDE THE TERM «COMMON GOOD»

Find out what the national and international press are talking about and how the term common good is used in the context of the following news items.

REFERENCE

« EDUCALINGO. Common good [online]. Available <https://educalingo.com/en/dic-en/common-good>. Apr 2023 ».

Some say that no Catholic can be a libertarian because libertarians reject the common good. The great throwaway complaint of Christian—often Catholic—opponents of libertarianism is that libertarians care nothing for the “common good.” When in need of a twitter-sized attack on liberty, they give us a quick, “because . . . the common good.” However much they may enjoy asserting “the common good,” the phrase does not mean what they think it means.

The “common good” has a
simple explanation as
well as a more nuanced one.
The short version is contained
within the phrase itself. The
“good,”
means those things
and conditions that humans value. “Common,” means
pertaining to
all without exception. A
similar word pair is used
twice in the U.S.
Constitution as it aims to
promote the “general welfare.” Ironically,
the “common good” and
the “general welfare” are
often invoked to support the forced redistribution of income to
favored
groups and individuals.

The common
good: the longer version

A fuller exposition of the common good is set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at ¶¶ 1906 et seq. The Catechism calls the common good “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.” Three essential elements are given. These are:

1. Respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person, especially in fostering “conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as “the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.”

2. Prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society. The group should promote access to all that is necessary for living a truly human life.

3. The peace and security of the group and of its members.

Negative vs. positive rights

In defining the role of authority in providing for the common good, it helps to recall the distinction between negative rights—with which the common good is chiefly concerned—and positive rights. A “negative” right refers to an individual’s freedom to act or refrain from acting; the right to live peaceably without interference from others.

When other people are forced to provide for our property or security (or money or health care and the like), we enter the realm of “positive” rights. In contrast to the negative right to liberty, a positive right is a right to force others to act on our behalf.

The common good secures negative rights

While the other two elements of the common good require respect for individual rights, this element which promotes access to spiritual and temporal goods is directed to society in common. Respecting fundamental rights is achievable without violating anyone else’s rights. On the other hand, ensuring that everyone has their full allotment of spiritual and temporal goods—while desirable—is not even possible. As to spiritual goods, that idea is simply ridiculous. As to temporal, earthly goods, the group has no means to give such goods to individuals unless they first take them from the person who produced them. And this assumes that such temporal goods are produced at all.

From the above, we see that the common good is best promoted when fundamental rights and personal security are protected; that is, when a person is allowed to live life peaceably and without interference.

In the next post, we will consider those who argue: “Catholics cannot be libertarian because libertarians ignore sinful inequalities.”