scholarly journals The Common Good and the Egalitarian Research Imperative

2021 ◽  
pp. 117-174
Author(s):  
Alex John London
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Moral Claim ◽  
Social Cooperation ◽  
Community Members ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common ◽  
Central Claim

This chapter distinguishes two conceptions of the common good and argues that reluctance to embrace a research imperative grounded in the corporate conception of the common good is sound. In contrast, it is argued that the basic or generic interest conception of the common good grounds an imperative with two requirements: to carry out research that produces the information necessary to enable a community’s basic social systems to efficiently and equitably advance the basic interests of its members and to ensure that this activity is organized as a voluntary scheme of social cooperation that respects the moral claim of its constituent members to be treated as free and equal. A central claim of this chapter is that an imperative to improve the capacity of social institutions to secure the interests of community members can be reconciled with fundamental moral respect for the status of the individuals who make such progress possible.

scholarly journals Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-26
Author(s):  
Alex John London
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Social Order ◽  
International Research ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Moral Claim ◽  
Social Cooperation ◽  
Community Members ◽  
The Common ◽  
Managing Risk

This chapter provides an overview of the main arguments in the book. It outlines eight problematic commitments that cause fault lines in the foundations of research ethics and that are rejected in subsequent chapters. It then shows how a conception of the common good connects research to the ability of key social institutions to safeguard the basic interests of community members. The resulting view grounds an imperative to promote research of a certain kind, while requiring that those efforts be organized as a voluntary scheme of social cooperation that respects its various contributors’ moral claim to be treated as free and equal. A framework for assessing and managing risk is proposed that can reconcile these goals and it is argued that connecting research to larger requirements of a just social order expands the issues and actors that fall under the purview of the field while providing a more coherent and unified foundation for domestic and international research.

scholarly journals For the Common Good

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex John London
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Social Order ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Social Cooperation ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Moral Claims ◽  
The Common ◽  
Study Participants

The foundations of research ethics are riven with fault lines emanating from a fear that if research is too closely connected to weighty social purposes an imperative to advance the common good through research will justify abrogating the rights and welfare of study participants. The result is an impoverished conception of the nature of research, an incomplete focus on actors who bear important moral responsibilities, and a system of ethics and oversight highly attuned to the dangers of research but largely silent about threats of ineffective, inefficient, and inequitable medical practices and health systems. In For the Common Good: Philosophical Foundations of Research Ethics, Alex John London defends a conception of the common good that grounds a moral imperative with two requirements. The first is to promote research that generates the information necessary to enable key social institutions to effectively, efficiently, and equitably safeguard the basic interests of individuals. The second is to ensure that research is organized as a voluntary scheme of social cooperation that respects its various contributors’ moral claims to be treated as free and equal. Connecting research to the goals of a just social order grounds a framework for assessing and managing research risk that reconciles these requirements and justifies key oversight practices in non-paternalistic terms. Reconceiving research ethics as resolving coordination problems and providing credible assurance that these requirements are being met expands the issues and actors that fall within the purview of the field and provides the foundation for a more unified and coherent approach to domestic and international research.

scholarly journals Valuing Compromise for the Common Good

Daedalus ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Gutmann ◽  
Dennis Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Institutional Reforms ◽  
Short Supply ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Common Mistake ◽  
Permanent Campaign ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common

Pursuing the common good in a pluralist democracy is not possible without making compromises. Yet the spirit of compromise is in short supply in contemporary American politics. The permanent campaign has made compromise more difficult to achieve, as the uncompromising mindset suitable for campaigning has come to dominate the task of governing. To begin to make compromise more feasible and the common good more attainable, we need to appreciate the distinctive value of compromise and recognize the misconceptions that stand in its way. A common mistake is to assume that compromise requires finding the common ground on which all can agree. That undermines more realistic efforts to seek classic compromises, in which each party gains by sacrificing something valuable to the other, and together they serve the common good by improving upon the status quo. Institutional reforms are desirable, but they, too, cannot get off the ground without the support of leaders and citizens who learn how and when to adopt a compromising mindset.

Social Problems, Public Policy, the Church and the Common Good

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-63
Author(s):  
D. Eric Schansberg ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Social Problems ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
Political Agents ◽  
American Society ◽  
The Church

From professional pundits to casual observers, there are deep concerns about the state of American society and profound doubts about its future. Political cynicism is ascendant--and yet, the desire for politicians to “do something” remains. What role can public policy have in addressing the largest social problems and their causes? And beyond public policy, what are the potentially effective means in terms of social institutions, including the Church? Although public policy offers some promise, its usefulness is generally exaggerated. Its costs are typically subtle and often ignored. Knowledge of consequences and tradeoffs is insufficient, and the motives of political agents are less than pure. And many dilemmas, by their nature, cannot be ably addressed by politics and policy. In contrast, a resurgence in civil society--particularly the Church--holds more promise. Even in a time of potential “exile,” the Church is called to pursue the holistic welfare of society and enhance the common good.

An economist in the public space

2017 ◽  
pp. 42-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Tirole
Keyword(s):  
Public Space ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Public Intellectuals ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Public Debates ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common

This third chapter of the book “The economy of the common good” considers the status of academic economists as public intellectuals. It discusses the pitfalls economists face when engaging in public debates, in providing expertise for businesses or governments. It also makes some normative claims as to the socially best form of interaction between economics and practice.

scholarly journals Dobra materialne w służbie człowiekowi – teologiczna interpretacja funkcji gospodarczej rodziny

2011 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 197-210
Author(s):  
Janusz Szulist
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Human Being ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Acceptable Standard ◽  
The Family ◽  
Material Goods ◽  
The Common ◽  
Economic Function

Exercising the economic function of the family manifests itself in making use of material goods in such a way that they serve the best possible way the permanent effort of an individual to self-improve. Hence, the material goods are by nature subjugated to the good of a person. Any distortion of this relationship (or hierarchy) results from the domination of subjectivism and the consumerist tendencies. Then, one can observe the development of ego societies or communities based exclusively on the material aspect. The personalist concept of the common good in relation to the family and the society allows to create the proper hierarchy of values which is put into practice when making use of the material goods for the benefit of a human being. Subsequently, the property of family enables the development of its members in the direction of the fuller humanity. The contemporary social systems demand the introduction of, so-called, family pay which determines the minimum to achieve an acceptable standard of life. Other similar initiatives are the common use of spiritual goods within a society or creating the favourable conditions for the responsible parenthood. The fulfilment of these postulates depends on the access of a family to an appropriate set of material goods.

Integrative Curriculum

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Beane
Keyword(s):  
General Education ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Integrative Approach ◽  
Student Centered ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Integrative Curriculum ◽  
The Status ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
The Common

An integrative curriculum is intended to help young people organize and integrate their present experiences so that they might be carried forward for the benefit of both self and the common good. As such, this kind of curriculum has historically been proposed as a preferred design for a general education intended for all students, particularly in programs meant to promote democratic living and learning. An integrative curriculum involves arrangements and methods that engage students in identifying self and social issues, critiquing the status of society and the common good, planning for new learning experiences, accessing resources, researching and solving problems, communicating ideas, collaborating with others, and reflecting on the meaning and value of experiences. Crucial to the use of the term “integrative” is the idea that individuals do their own integrating. This definition distinguishes an integrative curriculum from “integrated” curriculum organizations, such as “multidisciplinary” or “interdisciplinary,” in which teachers and others correlate content and skills from two or more subject areas with the intention of illustrating connections among them or making their content more accessible and engaging for students. Use of an integrative approach has a long history tied to progressive and democratic arrangements in elementary and secondary schools. These include CORE Programs, the experience-centered approach to curriculum, and many problem-centered courses. At present, some integrated approaches are enjoying popularity, as are methods like project- and problem-centered activities that are historically associated with integrative approaches. However, the student-centered, democratic philosophy that partly defines an integrative curriculum approach has waned under pressure from bureaucratic subject-based standards, tests, and prescriptive curriculum plans.

scholarly journals Ethical Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Practice in Three Traditions

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-34
Author(s):  
Joseph Situma ◽  
Stephen Ifedha Akaranga
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Common Good ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common

Entrepreneurs are a category of agents who are found in all human societies and their significance has been variously assessed. Although they are a universal phenomenon, their repertoire of activities, thoughts, motivations and emotions appear to be tradition-specific. This paper considers entrepreneurial practice in the liberal, libertarian, and communitarian traditions. The first objective is to determine if the primary ethical dimensions of entrepreneurial practice are structured by tradition. The second objective is to evaluate the status of entrepreneurial practice in the three traditions vis-à-vis common good. The paper uses the conceptual framework of tradition and its allied concepts of practice and narrative. It concludes that although the primary ethical dimensions of entrepreneurial practice arise from a tradition, novel entrepreneurial practices depart from tradition-set norms. It also concludes that entrepreneurial practices can and do violate the common good—more so in the liberal and libertarian tradition  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document