COMMON GOOD:

THE COMMON GOOD

The Common Good
Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael
J. Meyer

*************************************************************
WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: When politicians, businessmen, clegymen,
journalists and citizens talk of (or pay lip service to) the "common good", they are
dealing with one of the main questions in political philosophy.

The "common good" or "public good" is really an abbreviated term covering deep
and vast issues. Simply interpreted, it refers to the " just and/or fair distribution of
material goods, of freedoms and rights" in society.

Hereunder is a brief discussion on this concept of the "common good". While the
authors comment on American society, their ideas also apply to our homeland
society.

There is no higher RELIGION than human service. To work for the common good is the greatest creed.''
- Albert Schweitzer, 1875-1965, German Born Medical Missionary, Theologian, Musician, and
Philosopher


****************************************************************

The Common Good
Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael
J. Meyer
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, University of Santa Clara, San Jose, CA

Commenting on the many economic and social problems that American society now
confronts, Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson recently wrote: "We face a
choice between a society where people accept modest sacrifices for a
common good or a more contentious society where group selfishly protect
their own benefits." Newsweek is not the only voice calling for a recognition of and
commitment to the "common good." Daniel Callahan, an expert on bioethics,
argues that solving the current crisis in our health care system--rapidly rising costs
and dwindling access--requires replacing the current "ethic of individual rights"
with an "ethic of the common good".

Appeals to the common good have also surfaced in discussions of business' social
responsibilities, discussions of environmental pollution, discussions of our lack of
investment in education, and discussions of the problems of crime and poverty.
Everywhere, it seems, social commentators are claiming that our most fundamental
social problems grow out of a widespread pursuit of individual interests.

What exactly is "the common good", and why has it come to have such a critical
place in current discussions of problems in our society? The common good is a
notion that originated over two thousand years ago in the writings of Plato,
Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, the contemporary ethicist, John Rawls,
defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are...equally to
everyone's advantage". The Catholic religious tradition, which has a long history of
struggling to define and promote the common good, defines it 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."

The common good, then, consists primarily of having the social systems,
institutions, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that
benefits all people. Examples of particular common goods or parts of the common
good include an accessible and affordable public health care system, and effective
system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just
legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing
economic system. Because such systems, institutions, and environments have such
a powerful impact on the well-being of members of a society, it is no surprise that
virtually every social problem in one way or another is linked to how well these
systems and institutions are functioning.

As these examples suggest, the common good does not just happen.
Establishing and maintaining the common good require the cooperative
efforts of some, often of many, people. Just as keeping a park free of litter
depends on each user picking up after himself, so also maintaining the social
conditions from which we all benefit requires the cooperative efforts of citizens. But
these efforts pay off, for the common good is a good to which all members of society
have access, and from whose enjoyment no one can be easily excluded. All
persons, for example, enjoy the benefits of clean air or an unpolluted environment,
or any of our society's other common goods. In fact, something counts as a common
good only to the extent that it is a good to which all have access.

It might seem that since all citizens benefit from the common good, we would all
willingly respond to urgings that we each cooperate to establish and maintain the
common good. But numerous observers have identified a number of obstacles
that hinder us, as a society, from successfully doing so.

First, according to some philosophers, the very idea of a common good is
inconsistent with a pluralistic society like ours. Different people have different
ideas about what is worthwhile or what constitutes "the good life for human beings",
differences that have increased during the last few decades as the voices of more
and more previously silenced groups, such as women and minorities, have been
heard. Given these differences, some people urge, it will be impossible for us to
agree on what particular kind of social systems, institutions, and environments we
will all pitch in to support.

And even if we agreed upon what we all valued, we would certainly disagree about
the relative values things have for us. While all may agree, for example, that an
affordable health system, a healthy educational system, and a clean environment
are all parts of the common good, some will say that more should be invested in
health than in education, while others will favor directing resources to the
environment over both health and education. Such disagreements are bound to
undercut our ability to evoke a sustained and widespread commitment to the
common good. In the face of such pluralism, efforts to bring about the common good
can only lead to adopting or promoting the views of some, while excluding others,
violating the principle of treating people equally. Moreover, such efforts would force
everyone to support some specific notion of the common good, violating the freedom
of those who do not share in that goal, and inevitably leading to paternalism
(imposing one group's preference on others), tyranny, and oppression.

A second problem encountered by proponents of the common good is what is
sometimes called the "free-rider problem". The benefits that a common good
provides are, as we noted, available to everyone, including those who choose not to
do their part to maintain the common good. Individuals can become "free riders" by
taking the benefits the common good provides while refusing to do their part to
support the common good. An adequate water supply, for example, is a common
good from which all people benefit. But to maintain an adequate supply of water
during a drought, people must conserve water, which entails sacrifices. Some
individuals may be reluctant to do their share, however, since they know that so long
as enough other people conserve, they can enjoy the benefits without reducing their
own consumption. If enough people become free riders in this way, the common
good which depends on their support will be destroyed. Many observers believe that
this is exactly what has happened to many of our common goods, such as the
environment or education, where the reluctance of all person to support efforts to
maintain the health of these systems has led to their virtual collapse.

The third problem encountered by attempts to promote the common good is
that of individualism. our historical traditions place a high value on individual
freedom, on personal rights, and on allowing each person to "do her own
thing".Our culture views society as comprised of separate independent individuals
who are free to pursue their own individual goals and interests without interference
from others. In this individualistic culture it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to
convince people that they should sacrifice some of their freedom, some of their
personal goals, and some of their self-interest, for the sake of the "common good".
Our cultural traditions, in fact, reinforce the individual who thinks that she should not
have to contribute to the community's common good, but should be left free to
pursue her own personal ends.

Finally, appeals to the common good are confronted by the problem of an
unequal sharing of burdens. Maintaining a common good often requires that
particular individuals or particular groups bear costs that are much greater than
those borne by others. Maintaining an unpolluted environment, for example, may
require that particular firms that pollute install costly pollution control devices,
undercutting profits. Making employment opportunities more equal may require that
some groups, such as white males, sacrifice their own employment chances. Making
the health system affordable and accessible to all may require that insurers accept
lower premiums, that physicians accept lower salaries, or that those with particularly
costly diseases or conditions forego the medical treatment on which their live
depend. Forcing particular groups or individuals to carry such unequal burdens "for
the sake of the common good", is, at least arguably, unjust. Moreover, the prospect
of having to carry such heavy and unequal burdens leads such groups and
individuals to resist any attempts to secure common goods.

All of these problems pose considerable obstacles to those who call for an ethic of
the common good. Still, appeals to the common good ought not to be
dismissed. For they urge us to reflect on broad questions concerning the kind of
society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. They also
challenge us to view ourselves as members of the same community and, while
respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, to
recognize and further those goals we share in common.


"He does much who loves God much, and he does much who does his deed well, and he does his deed
well who does it rather for the COMMON GOOD than for his own will." - Thomas Kempis, 1379-1471,
German Monk, Mystic, Religious Writer

The HEALTH of the people is really the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as
a state depend. Benjamin Disraeli, 1804-1881, British Statesman, Prime Minister


Common good

By Michael Tan
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:28:00 10/31/2008

Filed Under: Family planning, Legislation, US elections,Personalities, Politics

Roman Catholics in the United States, many of them Filipino-Americans, will be doing a lot of soul
searching with the election just around the corner. As in the Philippines, one of the reproductive health
issues has become a major political issue, with some US Catholic bishops, priests and lay leaders
actively campaigning against Democratic Party candidates Barack Obama and Joseph Biden.
I have been closely following the developments through various American newspapers? Internet sites and
thought it would be useful to share some of the information, since some of the issues are also being hotly
debated in the Philippines.
Pro-life, pro-Obama
Obama and Biden have been attacked because they have declared that they would not support attempts
to overturn a Supreme Court decision made in 1973, better known as Roe vs Wade, which legalized
abortion. Republican candidate John McCain, on the other hand, has said he agrees that Roe vs Wade
should be overturned.
Calling themselves ?pro-life,? the anti-abortionists have assailed Obama and Biden as ?pro-death.? The
responses to these attacks have taken an interesting twist, with other anti-abortion Catholics coming out
not just to defend the Democratic candidates but to endorse them.
Statements from two of these Catholics have been widely publicized because they are respected lawyers.
Douglas Kmiec, an expert on constitutional law who was an official under Reagan and worked to overturn
Roe vs Wade, issued a statement where he notes that besides the legal battles, Catholics still need to be
open ?to different or alternative ways to discourage abortion.? Kmiec has also written a book, ?Can a
Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama,? where he questions the
proposition that a politician who refuses to ban abortion is ?complicit with evil? and therefore cannot be
voted for by a Catholic. Kmiec says Catholic voters can still choose candidates who ?establish justice
policies that advance the culture of life,? Obama being such a candidate.
The other lawyer, Nicholas Cafardi, also issued a statement. In it, he notes: ?Despite what some
Republicans would like Catholics to believe, the list of what the Church calls ?intrinsically evil acts? does
not begin and end with abortion.? Obama and Biden?s ?pro-choice? position, Cafardi says, might be
interpreted by some as ?intrinsically evil,? but there are other ?intrinsically evil acts? where candidates
need to speak out. Here, the Democratic candidates are clear: Obama opposes the war in Iraq, does not
support the use of torture and has a proposed program heavy on reducing poverty.
Fr. Thomas Reese, who edits the Catholic weekly magazine America, shares a startling piece of
information in a Washington Post/Newsweek blog: Abortions increased under ?pro-life? Presidents
Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. ?In contrast,? Reese notes, ?during the Clinton
administration the number of abortions fell.? He cites several studies to support the view that economic
and social support systems, such as those put up during the Clinton administration, bring down abortion
rates.
I see in these responses a shift away from an abortion-centered dichotomy of ?pro-life? (anti-abortion)
and ?pro-choice? (pro-abortion), with both pro-life and pro-choice advocates looking at a wider social
context for abortion, including tackling poverty as one of the major causes. A group called Democrats for
Life of America, which includes both ?pro-life? and ?pro-choice? advocates, has already drafted a
?Pregnant Women Support Act? which they hope the next administration will consider. Aiming to reduce
the abortion rate by 95 percent during the next 10 years, the bill has such provisions as free home visits
by registered nurses for new mothers, expanded health coverage for pregnant women and increased
funding for domestic violence programs.
One-issue politics
Two Catholics, Chris Korzen and Alexia Kelley, have written a book, titled ?A Nation for All: How the
Catholic Vision of the Common Good can Save America from the Politics of Division.? The book brings up
the hot election issues in the context of Catholic social teachings, including the concept of common good,
i.e., one must work for the welfare of all of society and this includes addressing issues of human dignity
among the poor.
The clearest explanations of these issues have come from the Notre Dame theologian Fr. Richard
McBrien. In a talk given early in October, he said that a ?consistent ethic of life ... neither treats all issues
as morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues....?
In a recent column appearing in the National Catholic Reporter, Father McBrien reminds readers that as
early as 1984, the American bishops urged Catholics to ?examine the positions of the candidates on the
full range of issues as well as their integrity, philosophy and performance.?
The term ?one-issue politics? has come up repeatedly to characterize the campaign against the
Democrats. The strident tone of these one-issue attacks seems to have led to a backlash. When the head
of the Catholic lay group Knights of Columbus attacked Biden, a Catholic, other Knights set up a website,
knightsforobama.com. Two new organizations, Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the
Common Good, have come out urging Catholic voters to consider issues of common good.
The debates resonate for Filipinos. In the Philippines, the opposition to the reproductive health bill has
taken a one-issue approach, equating reproductive health with abortion and labeling legislators
supporting the reproductive health bill as ?pro-death? and threatening to deny them Communion. The
strident, and sometimes vicious, tone of the attacks has dismayed even the most devout and traditional of
Filipino Catholics. I also know Catholics, usually apathetic about their religion, who are suddenly taking an
interest now in the Bible and moral theology, to be able to understand the debates around family planning
and reproductive health.
Even the response of Ateneo de Manila University president Fr. Bienvenido Nebres to the ?Galileo 14?
(faculty members who have openly declared support for the reproductive health bill) has assured space
for continuing ?critical? discussions even as he reaffirmed Ateneo?s adherence to the Catholic Church?s
stand on family planning. Before Father Nebres? memo, Filipino Catholics were already taking up the
challenge to try to understand the issues around reproductive health. While agreeing that family planning
is needed, they do have varying opinions on which methods are acceptable. What?s important is that
there has been a willingness to listen to each other and to work around issues of the common good, for
example, recognizing that the state must provide reproductive health services to those who cannot afford
such services.
Whether the reproductive health bill passes or not, it has at least forced many Catholics to examine their
consciences, and their faith, in a positive and revitalizing way.
* * *
Email: mtan@inquirer.com.ph
A study of Filipinos character, commissioned by the Senate, finds that Filipinos are
sensitive to others needs, good humored and love their families, but they lack a
sense of patriotism and the common good.
The 41-page report, issued in early July by the office of Senator Leticia Ramos
Shahani, also states: "Filipinos have a deep faith in God ... and live very intimately
with religion -- it is part of everyday life."
The report, based on existing sociological studies and a poll of 2,000 individuals,
says that Filipinos have personal ambitions and drives for power and status that are
"completely insensitive to the common good. Personal and in-group interests reign
supreme."
There is little cooperation and community spirit among Filipinos, it says, and they
also lack discipline and tend to be superficial.
On the other hand, Filipinos are flexible, optimistic and creative. They are survivors
capable of "eking out a living from a garbage dump," according to the report,
prepared by Doctor Patricia Licuanan, academic vice-president of the Jesuit Ateneo
de Manila University.
The study points out: "Our family orientation is both a strength and a weakness,
giving us a sense of rootedness and security, both very essential to any form of
reaching out to others. At the same time, it develops in us an in-group orientation
that prevents us from reaching out beyond the family to the larger community and
the nation."
The report continues: "Our flexibility, adaptability and creativity is a strength that
allows us to adjust to any set of circumstances and to make the best of the
situation. But this ability to play things by ear leads us to compromise on the
precision and discipline necessary to accomplish many work-oriented goals."
The report, which was endorsed by the Senate, says faith in God and religiosity are
sources of strength and courage, but they also lead to "an external orientation that
keeps people passive and dependent on forces outside themselves".
The nature of Philippine culture is traceable first of all to child-rearing practices, the
study claims.
Childrearing in the Filipino family is characterized by high nurturance, low
independence training and low discipline. "(The) Filipino child grows up in an
atmosphere of affection and overprotection where one learns security and trust on
the one hand and dependence on the other. In the indulgent atmosphere of the
Filipino home, rigid standards of behavior or performance are not imposed, leading
to lack of discipline," the study contends.
Moreover, the study says the social environment reinforces family training. The
environment is characterized by a feudal structure with great gaps between rich
and poor, which also develops dependence and passivity.
The Filipino, because of four centuries of colonization, has a decided inferiority
complex, the study says.
Based on the strengths and weaknesses of Filipino, the study proposes to develop
in Filipinos:
-- A sense of patriotism and national pride, and a genuine love, appreciation and
commitment to the Philippines and things Filipino.
-- A sense of the common good, that is, the ability to look beyond selfish interests;
also a sense of justice and outrage at violations of justice.
-- A sense of integrity and accountability, such as an aversion toward graft and
corruption in society and an avoidance of the practice in ones daily life.
-- The value and habits of discipline and hardwork.
-- The value and habits of self-reflection and analysis, the internalization of spiritual
values, the emphasis on essence rather than on form.
Strategies for change vary from the need of creating an ideology for Filipinos, to
more use of the Filipino language and more Filipinization of society, to moral
change in the countrys leadership.
Finally, the report suggests that the teaching of religion or catechism should be
concrete, integrated into daily life and socially relevant.
Religious movements should not only engage in "spiritual" activities but should also
reach out to the poor and needy, it concludes.

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL
GOOD: Program for National Prosperity
of the Philippines
FEBRUARY 13, 2010
tags: 2010 NATIONAL ELECTIONS, filipinos, GIBO
TEODORO,MANNY VILLAR, NOYNOY Aquino, PLATFORM, Politics
Is this the Program most Filipinos demand?
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
This program guarantees universal right to education,
health care, pension, welfare services, among others!
The program of the National Prosperity of the Philippines is an
epochal program.
The following are the programs that will bring the Filipino nation to
economic prosperity and national development.
1. We demand the union of all Filipinos in a Great Philippines on
the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.
2. We demand that the Filipino people have rights equal to those of
other nations; and that the continued domination of the business
trust in the country shall be abrogated.
3. We demand land and territory for the maintenance of our people
and the settlement of our surplus population.
5. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the
State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no
public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central
government, the province or the municipality, shall be held by
anyone who is not a citizen.
We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration
whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without
regard to character and fitness.
6. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure
that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and
earning a livelihood.
7. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
8. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or
physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the
interest of the community to the benefit of all.
Therefore we demand:
9. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise
from work, be abolished.
Breaking the Bondage of Interest
10. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
11. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
12. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
13. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-
class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be
rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest
consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall
deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and
municipalities.
14. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national
requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners
without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose.
The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation
in land.
15. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work
to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers,
etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious
Filipino to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to
reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the
responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of
the people The curricula of all educational establishments shall be
adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of
citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning.
We demand that specially talented children of poor parents,
whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of
the State.
21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national
health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting
juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the
introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the
greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the
physical education of the young.
22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation
of a national (folk) army.
23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who
propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the
press. In order to make possible the creation of a Filipino press, we
demand:
(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers shall be Filipino
citizens.
(b) Newspapers shall only be published with the express permission
of the State.
(c) Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be
suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art
and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our
folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing
demands shall be dissolved.
24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar
as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical
sense of the Filipino race.
National Prosperity of the Philippines as such represents the point
of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one
particular confession. It fights against the materialist spirit within
and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can
only come about from within on the principle:
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a
strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by
the political central parliament of the whole State and all its
organizations.
The formation of professional committees and of committees
representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws
promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the
federal states.
The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the
foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own
lives.