For the Common Good and Their Own Well-Being

Author(s):  
Alison K. Smith
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gene R. Laczniak ◽  
Nicholas J. C. Santos

This theoretical commentary explores the concept of Gross National Happiness (GNH) and connects it with several central macromarketing concepts such as QoL, ethics, the common good, the purpose of market activity as well as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. The paper portrays GNH as a normative concept that captures collective well-being; it categorizes GNH, at least from the standpoint of Western moral philosophy, as most closely aligned with classical utilitarianism, and it distinguishes GNH from QoL on the basis of its predominantly aspirational and subjective orientation. It asserts that GNH can be seen as one manifestation of the common good, and, in that manner can be perceived as a ‘more ethical’ conception of the purpose of business activity. Finally, it links GNH to promising areas of Macromarketing scholarship. One essential contribution of this commentary is that it differentiates subjective community happiness from more objective measures of QoL familiar to macromarketing studies.


Author(s):  
Gordon E. Dames

This article proceeds from the aim to revitalise the value of a service ethic for human well-being and the common good of all. The service delivery crisis in South Africa and Africa forms the context. A contemporary example of an embodied practical theology of service is offered, followed by a theological and social analysis of service delivery in South Africa. A theoretical service ethic framework with special reference to practical theology as a living Christopraxis is discussed. Finally, the value of diaconology as a science of service is presented, followed by the conclusion.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (24) ◽  
pp. 404-420
Author(s):  
Remigiusz Rosicki

The objective scope of the analysis encompasses special measures used in the fight against terrorism in the context of ethical and constitutional principles attributed to a democratic state ruled by law and a liberal democracy. A practical example of a special measure used in the fight against terrorism, and presented in the text, is furnished by the content of one of the articles in the Polish Aviation Law, which was found unconstitutional in 2008. The content of this article made it possible for an administrative authority to make a decision with regard to consenting to the destruction of a civil aircraft, if it was used as a means of terrorist attack. The main purpose of the paper is to consider the acceptable scope of radical measures in the fight against terrorism, while taking into account the reinterpretation of priorities in the hierarchy of legal principles. In order to elaborate the objective scope of the analysis, the following research question is phrased: To what extent is it possible to sacrifice the well-being of the individual (dignity, rights and freedoms) for the sake of the common good (security)? The adopted analysis methodology is based on a thought experiment consisting in the reinterpretation of ethical principles and the values of the constitutional norms in a democratic state ruled by law and a liberal democracy. With the benefit of essentialist reduction, it is posited that the two competing constitutional principles are the principle of dignity and the principle of the common good; they can be reduced to, for instance, protection of the life of an individual or of members of the community as a whole. Abstrakt Zakres przedmiotowy analizy obejmuje zagadnienie szczególnych środków walki z terroryzmem w kontekście zasad etycznych i konstytucyjnych przypisanych demokratycznemu państwu prawa i demokracji liberalnej. Przykładem praktycznym szczególnego środka walki z terroryzmem zaprezentowanym w tekście jest treść jednego z artykułów polskiego Prawa lotniczego, który został uznany za niekonstytucyjny w 2008 roku. Treść artykułu dawała możliwość podjęcia decyzji przez organ administracji publicznej w zakresie wyrażenia zgody zniszczenia cywilnego statku powietrznego w sytuacji, gdy ten użyty jest jako środek ataku terrorystycznego. Głównym celem pracy jest rozważanie zakresu dopuszczalności stosowania radykalnych środków walki z terroryzmem przy uwzględnieniu reinterpretacji priorytetów w hierarchii zasad prawnych. W celu uszczegółowienia zakresu przedmiotowego analizy zaprezentowano następujące pytanie badawcze: W jakim zakresie możliwe jest poświęcenie dobra jednostki (godności, praw i wolności) na rzecz dobra wspólnego (bezpieczeństwa)? Metoda analizy opiera się na eksperymencie myślowym polegającym na reinterpretacji zasad etycznych i wartości norm konstytucyjnych w demokratycznym państwie prawa i demokracji liberalnej. Przyjęto za pomocą redukcji esencjonalnej, że dwie rywalizujące ze sobą zasady konstytucyjne, to zasada godności i zasada dobra wspólnego, które mogą być sprowadzone np. do ochrony życia jednostki lub członków wspólnoty jako całości.


Daedalus ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Mann ◽  
Norman J. Ornstein

The framers designed a constitutional system in which the government would play a vigorous role in securing the liberty and well-being of a large and diverse population. They built a political system around a number of key elements, including debate and deliberation, divided powers competing with one another, regular order in the legislative process, and avenues to limit and punish corruption. America in recent years has struggled to adhere to each of these principles, leading to a crisis of governability and legitimacy. The roots of this problem are twofold. The first is a serious mismatch between our political parties, which have become as polarized and vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a separation-of-powers governing system that makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. The second is the asymmetric character of the polarization. The Republican Party has become a radical insurgency – ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. Securing the common good in the face of these developments will require structural changes but also an informed and strategically focused citizenry.


1994 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl N. Stauber

AbstractOne widely held view of the future of American agriculture is that it will continue the current trend toward fewer but larger farms, greater centralization and vertical integration, and declining rural populations. If so, the research, teaching and extension institutions created to serve agriculture will not survive unless they can adapt to changing political and demographic conditions, especially the domination of the suburbs. This will require these institutions to set new goals for themselves. Their historic pursuit of increased technical efficiency already has been so successful that it has sharply reduced the farm population, which has been their main base of public support. Suburban America, in contrast, will demand an agriculture that is more in harmony with nature. Alternative notions of the Common Good can provide the philosophical basis for this shift Historically, the economic system, including agriculture, has regarded nature as something to be used to advance human well-being. In this view (which could be called “Liberal” in the 19th century sense of the term), the reason to protect nature is to insure that it can continue to serve human needs. In contrast, the “Ecocentric” view of the Common Good emphasizes that humans are part of an ecological community, and that we must optimize the balance between human needs and the health of the ecosystem.


2021 ◽  
pp. 65-76
Author(s):  
Thaddeus Metz

Chapter 4, which begins Part II, addresses the moral theory from the African tradition according to which one is obligated to promote the common good without violating individual rights. This principle has been advanced by Kwame Gyekye, one of the most widely discussed African moral philosophers of the past twenty-five years. His ‘moderate communitarian’ ethic, although focused on promoting well-being, differs from Western utilitarianism, such that one cannot argue against the former by invoking well-known criticisms of the latter. The chapter advances fresh reasons for rejecting Gyekye’s welfarist approach to morality, principally on the ground that it does a poor job of capturing several intuitions salient in the African tradition. Sometimes permitting great inequalities of wealth, being competitive in the economic sphere, and undermining cultures can best improve well-being without violating individual rights, yet many African philosophers would judge these actions to be wrong to some degree.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document