On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:21:18 -0700, tg wrote:
> On Jul 23, 8:46 pm, no...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(PeterBP) wrote:
>> Mark M. <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > Is the common good really so hard a concept to grasp?
>>
>> No, but as Aristotle said, an educated man can entertain an idea
without
>> believeing in it; the same goes for the "commong good" as it goes for
>> Snoopy and The Buddy Birds.
>>
>> The problem with this mythological concept is that its proponents never
>> bother to accurately define it, delineate it, enumerate how good the
>> common good is, and who it is good for, etc. When challenged to
>> specificy what this "common good" exactly is, it usually goes straight
>> from appearently reasoned debate to screaming and mudslinging, and lots
>> of accusations of egoism, anti-social mindset, indifference to
suffering
>> of others, etc and blah-blah-blah ad nauseam of the poor fool who had
>> the indecency to challenge this exalted idea.
>>
>> Furthermore, it is used to excuse senseless expansion of scope and
>> powers of government, even for things that only a madman would claim to
>> be "good", much less a "common good".
>>
>>
>
>
> As usual, refuting this stuff is almost too easy.
>
> If you are trying to have a philosophical discussion, and someone
> offers a definition, then it is possible to continue the conversation
> based on that definition. For example, if I define a circle as a
> geometric figure with four sides of equal length at right angles to
> each other, we can continue to discuss geometry quite nicely.
>
> The only reason for you to raise this business is that you are
> interested in propaganda/politics, not a philosophical discussion. So
> here:
>
> I define a common good as a good that is held by all members of a
> group. That is no more difficult to understand than saying that some
> group has a common eye color.
>
> So if all members of a group wish to have a life span of at least 72
> years, living to 72 is a common good.
>
> -tg
Your definition of "common good" is not actually correct in that it is far
too literal. If there is a psychopathic member of the society that truly
believes that his "good" is superior to all others then with your
definition of "common good" there is no government action (law and
enforcement) that would obtain to be the "common good". The "common good"
is the good of the vast majority and not what is perceived as "good" by
the minority idiot fringe.
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
|
