On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:31:01 -0700, tg wrote:
> On Jul 24, 11:07 am, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> First of all, as I said, you may have a discussion using my definition
> or not, as you wish.
>
> Second of all, I am refuting the OP contention (incoherent as it may
> be) that there is no such thing as a common good. I've presented what
> seem to me a construction which is reasonable under the rules of
> grammar, common usage, and reason.
>
> I tend to agree in general with many of your ideas, but when you
> insist on playing in the same mud as these others, by trying to
> 'capture the definition' as you are here, or indulging in the morality
> game as you do elsewhere, you weaken your case.
I will continue to do as I have done, thank you. The words in the
Constitution "common good" do not mean that every moronic half wit agrees
with the "good"ness. Parsing the words literally is therefore an error.
>> 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
|
