The Not so Common Good

Reflecting on our topic of the common good from last week, I feel compelled to explore this topic more thoroughly. Defining what the common good means is an essential aspect in determining its role. For the sake of argument I am choosing to define common good as the sum total of those conditions of social living whereby men and women are enabled more fully and readily to achieve their well being. 

In defining the common good it is necessary to consider the needs of all people and the best manner to meet these needs. In his article, "The Common Good and Catholic Social Thought", John Coleman explores four objections to their being a common good for society. The first states that because knowledge is subjective and socially constructed, there is not way for anyone to really know the or an objective common good. The second objection simply states that society is too large for someone to know what is truly good for the entire entity. Staying with the theme of what is good for society, the the third objection argues that the presence of a common good will impose on someone else's vision of good. The final objection focuses on the many differences in society and states that because "wants and needs differ, they cannot be aggregated or ranked in any rational way"(8). I feel that each of these objections proposes a valid reaction against the creation of "the" or "a" common good. 

The common good needs to integrate itself within the current plurality of society and must speak of individuals in relation to their institutions. Social institutions (family, school, work) both constrain and empower. They shape the "behavior, imaginations, and purposes of individuals" which effectively shape the goals of the common good. Greater reflection on plurality and social institutions will reveal the potential for common good. However, in terms of plurality, how are we to reconcile such drastic differences in religion, ethnicity, political views so that we may come to understand a common good for all people, globally?

David Hollenbach wrote an article titled "The Common Good and Urban Poverty". This explores an interesting issue holding us back from establishing a common good. He states that because of plurality and drastic differences around the world, we have been taught to tolerate individuals for their unique characteristics. Concern for the common good has vanished from public discourse. Everyone tolerates the differences in the world and just remains complacent with the idea that those differences will forever leave us divided. People feel that tolerance will provide the necessary boundaries for everyone to live their lives to the fullest capacity. Yet tolerance is not strong enough to end homelessness and unemployment. We need to build a stronger vision of the common good which encompasses a sense of concern, rather than toleration, for one another. Is it possible to move past the stagnant views of toleration to a more loving view of the common good that calls into concern the sincere needs of each person?