scholarly journals Self-Interest and the Common Good in Book I of Homer's Iliad

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Fred Humphrey
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Trojan War ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Common ◽  
Judgment Of Paris

If you recall Homer's Iliad, you will remember that the poem, as we are often told, is the story of the Trojan War. The mythological background of the war is tied to a most unlikely source - namely, "the judgment of Paris." All the gods and goddesses, according to the poets, with the exception Eris (the goddess of strife or discord), were invited to the wedding of Thetis and Peleus. When Eris tried to attend the celebration, she was turned away. To spite those who had denied her entrance, Eris tossed a golden apple inscribed with the words, "To the Fairest," amongst the goddesses attending the wedding festivities.

Public Service, Public Goods, and the Common Good

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerardo Sanchis Muñoz
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Human Person ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
International Agencies ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Common ◽  
Appointed Officials

The proper provision of public goods by a well-functioning, impartial government is not the only thing necessary for attaining the common good, but it is essential. The economic view of the human person as a rational, self-interested maximizer has become pervasive in analyzing government dysfunction and is employed by international agencies to generate proposals to realign the economic incentives of government officials. But this mindset assumes and encourages self-interest and undermines idoneidad (suitability)—which includes integrity, motivation, and competence—as the most fundamental characteristic that must be demanded of both elected and appointed officials at all levels of government. The failure of public institutions in Argentina is employed as a telling example of such problems.

Some Bad

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Daniel Batson
Keyword(s):  
Physical Health ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Empathic Concern ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Immoral Action ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Common ◽  
Mental And Physical Health ◽  
Do So

Despite its virtues, empathy-induced altruism can at times harm those in need, other people, and the altruistically motivated person. Specifically, it can hurt those in need when acted on without wisdom and sensitivity or when a cool head is required. It can produce paternalism. It is less likely to be evoked by nonpersonalized, abstract, chronic needs. It can be a source of immoral action, leading us to show partiality toward those for whom we feel empathic concern even when we know that to do so is neither fair nor best for all. Indeed, when our behavior is public, empathy-induced altruism can pose a more serious threat to the common good than does self-interest. Finally, it can at times jeopardize our mental and physical health—even our life. Any attempt to call on empathy-induced altruism to build a more humane society needs to take these problems into account lest we do more harm than good.

scholarly journals The Common Good in an Age of Moral Hyperpluralism: A Catholic Bioethical Perspective

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 345
Author(s):  
John Kleinsman
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Moral Good ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Gift ◽  
Innovative Work ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Contemporary Account

This article will argue that the notion of the common good is imperilled by a particular contemporary account of the moral good; one which, because of its (somewhat narrow) emphasis on the individual, readily lends itself to a state of 'moral hyperpluralism' in which 'the good' is primarily defined in terms of the promotion and protection of self-interest. At the same time, it will be argued that any quest to recover the notion of the common good cannot be achieved by either returning to, or holding onto, a more traditional account of morality. It will also be proposed that, as part of the quest to recover the common good, close attention needs to be paid to how the term is understood. The tension between individual autonomy and the welfare of society, and the differing ways in which this tension is resolved within different moral paradigms, will emerge as central to any discussion about the ongoing place of the common good in contemporary legal and moral debates. Finally, it is suggested that a solid basis for articulating a robust account of the common good may be found in the foundational and innovative work being done by thinkers of the gift to establish an alternative account of morality. 

Harriet Martineau and the Impersonality of Pain

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Ablow
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Harriet Martineau ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Ideal

This chapter argues that one of the most famous invalids of the age—and one of the most important political theorists—used her many writings on illness to imagine a model of impersonality uniquely well suited to the responsibilities of legislation. The relation of the legislator to the community represents a recurring problem for utilitarianism: if self-interest is the only reliable motivation, it becomes difficult to account for the legislator's—and hence, the ideal citizen's—supposed commitment to the common good. In Harriet Martineau's account, only the enlightened sufferer is able to regard all persons as equally valuable, and hence, their own pain is of no greater or lesser consequence than that experienced by anyone else.

The Ethics of Voting

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Stacey Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Democratic Governance ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Third ◽  
Voter Preferences ◽  
Electoral Outcomes ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Individual Vote ◽  
The Common

The first question that is often raised in a discussion of the ethics of voting is whether or not there is a duty to vote. The view that there is a duty to vote is supported by two main arguments. The first holds that since the value of democratic governance is high persons should vote to preserve stable democracy. The second is that there is a duty to vote because if nobody voted the effects would be disastrous. The first of these arguments is criticized by Jason Brennan, who holds that since each individual vote will play little to no role in preserving stable democracy nobody has a duty to vote. The second is criticized by Loren Lomasky and Geoffrey Brennan, who argue that it is incomplete unless its supporters can show that democracy needs everyone to vote to continue. The question of whether there is a duty to vote naturally leads to the question of whether it is permissible for persons to vote in their own self-interest. Jason Brennan argues that persons should only (morally) vote for candidates or policies that they are justified in believing would promote the common good. It is unclear, however, what “the common good” consists of. This discussion of the morality of voting in one’s self-interest leads to the question of whether voting for a politician because she has made campaign promises is morally analogous to a voter selling her vote. In discussing this issue it is important to distinguish between the “restricted” defense of markets in votes (that the purchased votes are to be cast in favor of what the buyer is justified in believing is the common good) and the “unrestricted” defense of such a market (that purchased votes can be cast in any way the buyer pleases). Much of this discussion focuses on the morality of unrestricted markets in votes. Christopher Freiman has offered four main arguments in favor of such a market: (1) that it will make both the buyer and the seller better off; (2) that it is required by respect for voter liberty; (3) that it is relevantly similar to other practices that are currently allowed, such as logrolling; and (4) that it would enable electoral outcomes to better express voter preferences. None of these arguments are persuasive. The first is based on illicitly inferring from the claim that persons would voluntarily buy and sell votes if a market were allowed to the claim that they would thereby desire that this market be allowed. The second argument is flawed because if some persons would prefer that a market not be allowed, this could provide a sufficient reason to restrict their liberty by precluding them from selling their votes. The third argument overlooks important disanalogies between votes traded between voters, and votes traded between legislators. The fourth argument is based on the implausible assumption that vote sellers would not misrepresent their political preferences in a market for votes.

Freedom, Self-Interest, and the Common Good

1987 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-145
Author(s):  
Richard J. Connell ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Common

The Ethics of Voting

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Moral Obligation ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Democratic Process ◽  
Economic Policies ◽  
Civic Duty ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Common ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
The Right

Nothing is more integral to democracy than voting. Most people believe that every citizen has the civic duty or moral obligation to vote, that any sincere vote is morally acceptable, and that buying, selling, or trading votes is inherently wrong. This book challenges our fundamental assumptions about voting, revealing why it is not a duty for most citizens—in fact, it argues, many people owe it to the rest of us not to vote. Bad choices at the polls can result in unjust laws, needless wars, and calamitous economic policies. The book shows why voters have duties to make informed decisions in the voting booth, to base their decisions on sound evidence for what will create the best possible policies, and to promote the common good rather than their own self-interest. They must vote well—or not vote at all. This book explains why voting is not necessarily the best way for citizens to exercise their civic duty, and why some citizens need to stay away from the polls to protect the democratic process from their uninformed, irrational, or immoral votes. In a democracy, every citizen has the right to vote. This book reveals why sometimes it's best if they don't. In a new afterword, “How to Vote Well,” the book provides a practical guidebook for making well-informed, well-reasoned choices at the polls.

Universal Broadband

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Yates ◽  
Joseph W. Weiss
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Broadband Internet ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Information And Communication ◽  
The Common ◽  
Comprehensive Framework

A new digital divide is emerging both within and between nations that is due to inequalities in broadband Internet access. To bridge the global broadband divide, organizations and individuals must collaborate to provide broadband access to a converged high-speed Internet for both rich and poor citizens worldwide. The authors argue that addressing this global problem is an ethical imperative that requires bridging the perspectives of multiple stakeholders and applying their collective resources, power and will. This paper develops a comprehensive framework, using stakeholder theory, which identifies the global stakeholders as well as the roles and responsibilities that these stakeholders must assume to balance their self-interest with serving the common good. The authors’ framework also highlights relationships between key stakeholders, namely governments and their citizens, businesses in the information and communication technology (ICT) industries, and other organizations. This paper makes four important observations that can guide governments and other stakeholders in bridging the broadband divide in pursuit of the common good.

For the Common Good

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Government Policies ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Common ◽  
Good For

This chapter argues that citizens should vote in ways that promote the common good rather than in ways that promote their self-interest at the expense of the common good. The egoistic view of voting holds that citizens rightly may choose government policies maximally favorable to themselves, regardless of what cost these programs impose upon others. In contrast, the public-spirited view holds that citizens ought to vote for the common good. On this view, citizens must not aim for purely private interests, especially when such interests come at the expense of the common good. Voters should look for policies good for all, rather than seeking to exploit their fellow citizens through government.

Styles of Active Citizenship

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Braunstein
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Elected Officials ◽  
Active Citizenship ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Close Attention ◽  
Collective Voice ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Common ◽  
Active Citizen

While Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrate a correspondence between Interfaith's and the Patriots’ styles of active citizenship and their respective democratic imaginaries, Chapter 6 specifies a key mechanism through which each group’s way of imagining what it means to be an active citizen influenced how they actually practiced active citizenship. Close attention is paid to moments of disagreement and conflict within each group: over whether to be civil or confrontational in interactions with public officials; whether to pursue self-interest or the common good; whether to speak with a collective voice or as individuals; and whether to attempt to replace or persuadeelected officials who did not represent the groups’ interests. In each case, the choices both groups’ made were shaped by conscious considerations of what kinds of actions were most appropriate for “groups like them,” in light of their ideal visions of how citizens in a diverse democracy should interact with one another and with government, under God’s watchful gaze. As the groups embraced practices that felt appropriate and rejected others that seemed inappropriate, they were channeled toward different group styles of active citizenship.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document