scholarly journals IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPT OF THE “COMMON GOOD” FOR POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Good Life ◽  
The Good Life ◽  
Political Society ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common

Political society is established for the provision of the good life for the citizens of the society. But to ensure that the task is carried out, political societies elect or appoint leaders saddled with the responsibility of guiding, directing, leading and organizing the society. Capable and efficient political leaders help their societies to develop economically and help the citizens to have access to the good life. They are concerned about the common good of the society. Inept and inefficient leaders often are concerned about their own selfish interests and bring miseries and suffering to their peoples. In spite of the ideals of good leadership and the positive values of working for the public interest and common good of their societies, there are still many political leaders who are in power for their own sakes. Because of this there are many underdeveloped and poor societies especially in the Global South. This paper uses a critical analytic and hermeneutic method to examine and appraise the concept of the common good and its implications for political leaders. The value of the common good is applicable to every society. Political leaders everywhere are to strive for the common good. The paper finds that bad and corrupt political leaders are still prevalent in many societies in the world. The presented research will also help to designate the feature of the articulation of «common good» in the modern philosophical conceptions. The paper concludes that there is need to highlight the value of the common good that political leaders should strive for and help their societies obtain. This done there will be a higher level of peace and harmonies in political societies.

scholarly journals The standing of the public interest

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (49) ◽  
pp. 46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amitai Etzioni
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Technological Developments ◽  
The Common ◽  
Liberal Communitarianism

Liberal communitarianism holds that a good society is based on a carefully crafted balance between individual rights and the common good; that both normative elements have the same fundamental standing and neither a priori trumps the other. Societies can lose the good balance either by becoming excessively committed to the common good (e.g. national security) or to individual rights (e.g. privacy). Even societies that have established a careful balance often need to recalibrate it following changes in historical conditions (such as the 2001 attacks on the American homeland) and technological developments (such as the invention of smart cell phones).

Religion as experience: Dialogue with John Dewey

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (5) ◽  
pp. 667-683
Author(s):  
Anne-Sophie Lamine
Keyword(s):  
John Dewey ◽  
Common Good ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The World ◽  
Valuation Process ◽  
The Common ◽  
Self Transcendence ◽  
Art As Experience

This article discusses John Dewey’s (1859–1952): Theory of valuation (1939), Art as experience (1934), A common faith (1934), The public and its problems (1927) for the socio-anthropological analysis of the religious. This pragmatist approach, attentive to intersubjectivity and experience, allows to work on aspirations and ideals, through giving place to emotions besides rationality in the valuation process. Further, the idea of public and pre-political, permits to pay attention to processes which are different from differentiation and where people contribute to the common good from their specific (minority) situation. In a pragmatist approach, believing comes in three modalities as ‘caring about,’ in the sense of giving value to forms of experiences and self-construction, respectively, to forms of self-transcendence, and to ways of connecting with the world (others and nature).

The Common Good and the Public Interest

1980 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Douglass
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common

scholarly journals The Other Dimension of Caring Thinking (with a new commentary by Phillip Cam)

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Margaret Sharp
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Creative Thinking ◽  
Good Life ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Good Life ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
Matthew Lipman ◽  
Mental Acts

Life comes from physical or biological survival. But the good life comes from what we care about, what we value, what we think truly important, as distinguished from what we think merely trivial. What we care about is the source of the criteria we use to evaluate ideas, ideals, persons, events, things, and their importance in our lives. And it is these criteria that determine the judgments we make in our everyday lives. In the second edition of Thinking in Education, Matthew Lipman (2002) has indicated the importance of fostering critical, creative and caring thinking in children, if one is to prepare them to make better judgments and live qualitatively better lives. He tells us that caring thinking is appreciative thinking, active thinking, normative thinking, affective thinking and empathetic thinking and then goes on to list a number of mental acts under each of these categories. Maybe it is because ‘caring thinking’ is not as common a term as ‘critical thinking’ and ‘creative thinking’ in everyday educational language that we stop for pause when we hear it. However when we read what Lipman says about caring thinking, we find ourselves nodding and saying to ourselves, ‘Yes, that makes sense. To think caringly means to think ethically, affectively, normatively, appreciatively and to actively participate in society with a concern for the common good’ (Lipman 2002, p. 271). In a real sense what we care about is manifest in how we perform, participate, build, contribute and how we relate to others. It is thinking that reveals our ideals as well as what we think is valuable, what we are willing to fight and suffer for.

Accounting, the public interest and the common good

2020 ◽  
Vol 67-68 ◽  
pp. 102144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila Killian ◽  
Philip O'Regan
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common

Engaging Sensibilities and the Common Good

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Henham
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Social Values ◽  
Practical Relevance ◽  
Positive Role ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Sharing Values ◽  
The Common ◽  
Shared Social Values

This chapter discusses two interrelated concerns. It begins by explaining why sentencing should engage more directly and effectively with the emotions and sensibilities of its relevant audiences before considering the broader question of how it might better serve the ‘public interest’ by contributing more effectively to the ‘common good’. The discussion then explains why an ideological commitment to shared social values is considered pivotal in encouraging adherence to penal norms and influencing conduct. It suggests that embedding and sharing values within and between communities is more likely where the state takes a positive role in encouraging the development of reciprocal notions of awareness, mutual respect, and responsibility, both individual and collective. Such policies should have moral credibility and practical relevance. Important parallels between religious and secular notions of the common good are drawn, providing insights that bear directly on sentencing policy’s role in promoting social justice.

Social impact reporting in the public interest: the case of accounting standardisation

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Adams ◽  
Dale Tweedie ◽  
Kristy Muir
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Accounting Standards ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Public ◽  
Stakeholder Views ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
The Common

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the extent to which accounting standards for social impact reporting are in the public interest. This study aims to explore what the public interest means for social impact reporting by charities; and assess the extent to which the accounting standardisation of social impact reporting supports the public interest so defined. Design/methodology/approach This study conducts a case study of how stakeholders in Australian charities conceptualise the public interest when discussing accounting standardisation. This paper distinguishes three concepts of the public interest from prior research, namely, aggregative, processual and common good. For each, this paper analyses the implications for accounting and how accountants serve the public interest, and how they align with stakeholder views. Findings Stakeholder views align with the aggregative and processual concepts of public interest, however this was contested and partial. Accounting standards for social impact reporting will only serve the public interest if they also capture and implement the common good approach. Practical implications Clarifying how key stakeholders interpret the public interest can help standard-setters and governments design (or withhold) accounting standards on social impact reporting. This paper also distinguishes different practical roles for accountants in this domain – information merchants, umpires or advocates, which each public interest concept implies. Originality/value This paper extends prior research on accounting for the public interest to social impact reporting. The paper empirically demonstrates the salience of the common good concept of public interest and demonstrates the diversity of views on the standardisation of social impact reporting by charities.

The Common Good and Common Ground

2019 ◽  
pp. 34-51
Author(s):  
Jonathan H. Marks
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Responsibility Of Government ◽  
Public Health Officials ◽  
The Common

This chapter reviews the related notions of the common good, the public good, and the public interest. Although corporations can contribute to the common good, they are not guardians of the common good. That is the responsibility of government bodies and public officials. There may be reasonable disagreements about how to define and promote the common good. But policymakers should not conflate the commercial interests of powerful industry actors with the common good. Nor should public officials confound the common good and common ground. Finding common ground with industry ordinarily requires public officials to take off the table interventions that might promote the common good. Public health officials should expressly consider ways to promote the public health that may not create benefits for the private sector, and may even be inimical to the interests of industry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document