Rediscovering the Sense and Role of Common Good in the Globalized Society

M. Lorenz Moisés J. Festín
San Carlos Seminary, Philippines

Abstract

The paper investigates the relevance and significance of the concept of common good in contemporary society.  First, it traces the origin of the concept to the ancient Greek philosophical understanding of society, namely as polis.  Then it makes a comparison between the current global order and the situation after the conquests of Alexander the Great, whose vision was to establish a cosmopolis, literally a global city.  In the end, the paper considers whether it is still possible to conceptualize a notion of common good applicable to the current global society. 

Key words: philosophical, common good, globalization, human nature, social integration

Introduction

The main purpose of the paper is to investigate the relevance and significance of the concept of common good in contemporary society.  As an essential element in any given social entity, common good constitutes an important subject matter that both invites and requires unremitting philosophical reflection as society progresses.

The paper has three parts.

In the first part, I make a brief historical remark about the philosophical concept of common good.  The concept could trace its origin to the ancient Greek philosophical understanding of society, namely as polis.  Unique a being that he is, human being is thought to have an end that is not merely individual but also collective.  He is not simply an individual.  He is also a social being.  Thus, his telos is often seen as common with that of other human beings.

The second part discusses how societies have significantly changed over the years.  They have become less isolated and more cosmopolitan.  National borders and interests have given way to international collaboration and cooperation.  The world we live now has developed into a global village.  In relation to this, I will argue that the current global order resembles the situation during the time of Alexander the Great, whose vision was to establish a cosmopolis, literally a global city.

Finally, in the third part, I consider whether the notion of common good in itself has lost its relevance in the face of the manifold social changes.  Is it really possible to conceptualize a notion of common good that would be applicable to the current global society?  Or, is the idea of common good, having originated from ancient Greek philosophy, a concept no longer relevant to the present social life?

I bring my discussion to a close with a note on the universality and naturality of the common good of humankind.

1. A Historical Note: The Dissolution of the Platonic-Aristotelian Political Theory in a Cosmopolitan Context

Philosophy came to exist with man’s constant quest for ultimate explanation.  Confronted with a mystery that the world embodies, ancient Greek philosophers embarked on an enterprise that sought to answer the question “why”.

The problem in itself could be understood and formulated in various ways.  And one usual way of approaching it is to inquire about the purpose of things.

Accordingly, one of the earliest solutions is the teleological approach.  Teleology envisions reality as purposive.  Every being aims at its own telos, goal or end.  And this goal or end of every being eventually came to be understood as its good.

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.” ^[1]

The idea of common good stems from such a conceptualization of human good.  Man is regarded as a being whose end can be achieved only in the context of a collectivity, that is his society.  He is thus not simply an individual, but also a social being.  And he shares a common end with other human beings.

Ancient Greek philosophy sees the human individual always as part of the society.  It identifies his end with that of his society.  Hence, previously the study of man was just part of the study of his society.  And the treatment of his good is dissolved in the treatment of the common good, understood as the good of the society.  It was only with Aristotle that initial attempt to come up with a separate ethical science was made.

Our own concept of common good is closely connected with the ancient Greek notion of society.  A look at history would show how St. Thomas Aquinas’s employment of many of the ancient Greek philosophical thoughts has facilitated the adaptation and integration of the same into our thought paradigms today.  One may thus wonder whether the notion of common good in itself is already an obsolete concept.

Certainly in the course of time ideas could lose their significance.  In fact, much of Aristotle’s political teachings became irrelevant – even during his time – when society underwent significant changes.

It may be recalled that Alexander the Great, who himself was a student of Aristotle, was instrumental in those changes.  The success of his conquests from the year 334 until 323 B.C. resulted not only in the reshaping of the political map but also in the conceptualization of what a society should be.

The conquests led to the integration of a multicultural and multi-tribal populace.  It created a cosmopolitan society that diminished the importance and influence of the polis or city-state.  And it afforded the individual to discover himself.

In the city-state the individual had a greater chance to take part in running the affairs of the state.  After all the size of such a society permitted that sort of involvement.  A polis is “by definition a community of individuals who participate in the government of the community.”  It is “the complete or perfect type of community.”  Its size hardly resembles that of present day states.  Aristotle himself would describe a perfect city-state as neither too populated nor hardly populated.  It has to be big enough to satisfy the needs of its citizens and small enough for each of its members to be given the chance to take part in its affairs.

Understandably thus a citizen was readily identified with “one who is able to participate in the deliberative and judicial areas of the government,” whereas a slave was seen as “an instrument which precedes and conditions the other instruments.” ^[2]

Nevertheless, such setup has reduced the individual to a mere part of the society.  His good was seen simply as integrated and dissolved in the public common good.  And when Alexander’s cosmopolitan society supplanted the city-state community, people had great difficulty identifying society’s good with theirs.

But that led to the individual’s discovery of his own good.  The individual saw his good as something not necessarily identified with that of the society.  And the effect was the emergence of individualism among the citizens.

Paradoxically then Alexander’s conquests resulted in two phenomena, the movement toward greater integration and the movement toward individualism.  And while they may seem to be opposed in direction, they are actually complementary movements.

The movement toward greater integration consists in the diffusion of the cosmopolitan ideal.  This includes the conception of the entire world as one city.  Peoples began to look at one another no longer as enemies but as possible partners in greater endeavors.  And prejudice against the Barbarians started to diminish, and intermarriage with them came to be accepted.

With the enlargement of the society, however, came the discovery of the individual.  The human individual started to consider himself in isolation from his society.  He began to see his good no longer as dissolved in the society’s common good.  And while such a view was still prevalent even after the revolution, people started to appreciate their individuality and differences.

2. The Global Village

The current world order presents a situation quite reminiscent of Alexander’s epoch.  Movements toward greater integration can be discerned in the political and economic policies of many governments.  Nations are learning to appreciate the importance and benefits of mutual cooperation.  And the trend toward collaboration is beginning to penetrate every facet of social life, from economy to scientific research, from military development to ecological concerns.

Perhaps one concrete example of such a large-scale cooperation is the experience of the European Union.  Organized in 1951 initially as an organization of six European countries for the purpose of drawing common guidelines in regard to coal and steel industries, the union has expanded not only in membership but also in areas of collaboration.  The union no longer merely constitutes economic cooperation among trading partners.  It has likewise adopted common policies and even established shared governing bodies concerned with issues, such as legislation, defense, ecology, human rights, and the like.  The success the union now enjoys has undoubtedly come to be a source of inspiration for neighboring countries to do the same.

The European experience of mutual cooperation is just one among the many attempts toward greater integration.  Similar trends have also become quite visible in various parts of the globe, including the regional cooperation of ASEAN countries.  International treaties and agreements have multiplied.  And the number of countries taking part in such agreements has swelled to new records.

Still, all these are just part of a much larger phenomenon that continues to baffle every human individual in the globe.  The interdependence of countries beyond their respective regions attests to the fact that cooperation in matters not only economic transcends territorial proximity.  The world itself has become a village.   Thanks to globalization, this global village can even mimic in extra-larger scales the banalities of a rural community, where trade of goods and exchange of news, both factual and fictional, are a common occurrence.  And just like in any typical village, where one is hard-pressed to conduct oneself in conformity to social norms, it seems that national governments can only afford to go with the flow of global trends.

One might thus wonder whether we as individuals are just part of an organic entity that has a life of its own.  Are we simply a particular moment in this worldwide unfolding that globalization represents?  Might this globalization be just an evidence of a global movement that is immune to any human intervention?  Could Hegel be right in his claim that the world is nothing but a Spirit manifesting itself?

Perhaps, it might be interesting to also ask how an individual feels toward this global society.  What is his outlook in regard to this colossal structure in which he finds himself grafted?  What does an ordinary citizen of a developing country, for example, think of his society that has come to be shaped in many ways by globalization?  Does he even have any idea of his place in the world right now?

I make this reference to the current world order to identify the context in which socio-political life in any given country is defined.  My basic claim is that recent global developments and progress have created a situation in which countries like the Philippines and, for that matter, the millions of ordinary Filipinos are just among the many constituent parts that compose the world community.  I wonder then whether consequences similar to those of Alexander’s conquests could be expected from all these recent global events.

Has globalization likewise instilled an individualistic outlook among the people of today?  Is this recent progress toward greater worldwide integration just one side of the entire reality?  Could there also be a parallel inward bound movement toward individualism?

The occurrences at the dawn of the present millennium demonstrated the interconnectedness of the different parts of the world.  Events at one side of the globe once again proved to have serious repercussions on the other.  The effects of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. in 2001, for instance, could be felt even in the remotest regions of the least developed countries.  Wars were started.  Governments were overthrown.  And the global economy quivered.

And yet in all these, it is the individual who has to endure the consequences.  The recurrent transport strikes in the Philippines, for example, are just an evidence of how helpless we have come to be in the face of a problem that traces its roots in an event that happened in a place very much distant from us.  Could governments do something about it?  Could people choose not to be affected by that event?  Could transport groups modify the current global economic setup by their clamor and protest?  Could an ordinary citizen in any given country ever introduce a difference to the present state of things?

I guess our predicament is just similar to the social condition after the conquests of Alexander the Great.  Like the Greek city-states, countries and their governments are beginning to lose their relevance and importance.  Their influence has significantly diminished.  And like the human individuals during that time, we too are at a loss.  We could hardly see how the common good that our state safeguards could embody our goods and aspirations.  And the only alternative left to us is either to organize ourselves into smaller associations just like other interest groups or to withdraw ourselves entirely and simply embrace an attitude of indifference and individualism.

Is the notion of shared aspirations and goals then just a matter of human convention?  Is there anything at all that binds us as a society and as human race?  Is there really such a thing as common good? 

3. Rediscovering the Sense and Role of Common Good

The relentless expansion of our society into a global village has made it hard for any human individual to see his good as embodied in society’s goals and priorities.  Understandably one could ask whether the notion of common good could ever find actuality in such a society.  Does it still make sense to speak of common good when the number of people who will share in it has made a quantum leap?

Obviously if common good were to be understood simply as an advantage or gain equally shared by all, it might be impossible to imagine billions of people taking benefit from it.  But is that really what is meant by common good?  Could common good, in the first place, be compared with a corporation’s profit apportioned fairly to its shareholders?  Is common good something that is voted upon by the citizens of a country?

There are many possible ways of approaching the question of common good.  One familiar approach would be what we might call the Utilitarian approach.  As a philosophical system, Utilitarianism identifies good with what is useful, beneficial, pleasurable or advantageous.  Central to its teaching is the principle that emphasizes the greatest advantage of the greatest number of people.  Thus, the best choice for a Utilitarian is one that promotes the good of the majority.  An act or a decision is valuable when, and only when, it is directed to the good of the greatest number.

And what constitutes this good of the majority?  Utilitarianism would identify it simply with the totality of individual goods.  The good of humanity thus is nothing but the “sum total of the good of its members.” ^[3]

The Utilitarian approach, however, would make it all the more difficult for the notion of common good to make sense in a cosmopolitan society.  For to understand common good as such is to conceive it as some commodity to be shared by every member of the society.  Hence, just to define what would be of beneficial to the majority or to the greatest number would already require some sort of election.  But this is simply unrealistic if not absolutely impossible.  Wouldn’t that, in fact, imply that every time a policy affecting everyone in the society is introduced, a referendum would have to be called for?

St. Thomas Aquinas offers another way of understanding common good.  According to him, common good is something that has a foundation on our nature as human beings.  Aquinas argues that insofar as we share a common nature, we do likewise have common aspirations and goals.

The commonality of common good thus consists in the commonness not only of the ends that we pursue but also of the foundation that gives our pursuits justification.  By virtue of our nature as human beings, we all pursue goals that evidence our humanness.  Thus common good is not something we vote upon.  It is not something that is determined by the majority.  It is rather something defined by the common nature we all share.

Understood in this sense, common good could no longer be conceived as a commodity or advantage that would have to be equally distributed among the citizens.  Instead, common good consists in the goods that are proper to us as human beings.  And these include the many rights we have by virtue of our humanity, the right to be treated and respected as a human being, the right to be given what is just and due to oneself, the right to realize one’s person, etc.

In view of this, the society does not lose its efficiency in promoting the common good, despite its relentless increase and expansion.  For the common good it safeguards is identified with the very goods that every single individual pursues as a human being.  The common good of the society cannot then be alien to the good of the human individual, so that no individual can simply be sacrificed for the sake of the society.

That the central function of the society is the promotion of the common good means that it has to provide human individuals with the possibility of attaining the human goods.  The common good of the society is not something that is isolated from the goods of individual persons.  For there would be no such a thing as common good, if in the first place there weren’t goods that human individuals commonly pursue.

Of course, there are always disagreements among citizens in every society.  Results of elections, referenda, plebiscites and surveys, in fact, have never shown a unanimous opinion on any particular issue.  There have been and there will always be dissenting voices.  And in the context of our cosmopolitan society, brought about by the current world order, the diversity of viewpoints becomes even more striking.  The outcome of the last U.S. elections, for instance, evidences a rift among Americans in regard to a host of issues – issues that have likewise divided the community of nations, such as the Iraqi War.  [It must be recalled that the United Nations Security Council has never arrived at a unanimous decision prior to the invasion of Iraq, even if the serious repercussions of it affected everyone in the globe.]

Now, does that mean that the notion of common good is no longer realizable in the present-day social order?  Is it still possible for a given society to arrive at a choice with which everyone agrees?

It’s true, it has become extremely difficult and almost impossible for any society to attain consensus among its constituents.  But then again, common good is not something that is arrived at through elections, surveys or plebiscite.  It is not to be understood as a result of consensus and compromise.

Common good is more fundamental than that.  It refers to the more basic realities that evidence the commonalities we share by virtue of our nature as human beings.  Common good therefore precedes society’s every collective decision, expressed and arrived at in a variety of ways, including the electoral exercise.

Thus, although results of an electoral exercise may not be favorable to some sectors of the society, the presupposition should always be that the exercise itself constitutes an instantiation of common good, in that every citizen is given what is due to him – the possibility of expressing one’s opinions, the opportunity to be heard on it, and so on.

The same applies to the task of legislation, assigned to lawmakers.  Although it could not be avoided that certain civil laws might be more beneficial to some members of the society than to others, basic to every form of legislation is that it should be directed to the common good.  Aquinas thus defines law as “a certain order of reason for the common good, promulgated by him who takes care of the community.” ^[4]

Common good, understood as more basic than every communal decision of the society, suggests that even beyond the specifically collective activities, like legislation and the electoral exercise, people have the duty and obligation to promote and seek the common good in all instances, even if they will not – either directly or in any way – benefit from it in each of those instances.  For the pursuit of the common good should be motivated not by merely personal gain, but by the fact that the good one pursues forms part of the natural aspirations of every single human being.  That is, insofar as human beings by virtue of their nature aim at certain goods, these human goods ought to be pursued whether these goods directly concern oneself or someone else in a given moment.  Human goods form part of the common good insofar as they are shared goods commonly pursued by every human individual.

That is why, according to Thomas Aquinas, even to a stranger we ought to extend a hand when he is in need of help, especially if this help would be essential to his continued existence.  Aquinas in De perfectione spiritualis vitae writes, “Because all human beings share in the nature of the species, every human being is naturally a friend to every human being; and this is openly shown in the fact that one human being guides, and aids, in misfortune, another who is taking the wrong road.” ^[5]

Explaining Aquinas’ argument, John Finnis states, “The only reasons we have for choice and action are the basic reasons, the goods and ends to which the first practical principles direct us.  Those goods are human goods; the principles contain no proper names, no restrictions such as ‘for me’.  So it is not merely a fact about people’s practical understanding, that they can be interested in the well-being of a stranger, whom they will never meet again but now see taking the wrong turning and heading over a cliff; for it is the same good(s) that the stranger can share in or lose and that I can: specifically human good(s).” ^[6]

Conclusion: The Natural Foundation of the Common Good

That our world and the various societies therein have become inextricably tied up is a reality we can hardly deny.  Our way of life and our daily concerns can readily attest to the fact that we live in a world that has become too small for anyone to escape the influence and impact of this interconnectedness.

Such development has certainly been advantageous to humanity and to its progress.  Every human individual in one way or another has felt the benefits it brings.

And yet, there is also a downside to it.  For on account of the same interconnectedness, the significance of human individuality as well as the distinctiveness of every nation and state are at risk of being rendered relative to the totality that the emerging global society has come to represent.

Our concern thus is whether this social globalization has created a totalizing entity that simply defines the life and destiny of every human being.  Would the human individual still be able to look at the goals and objectives of the global society as embodying his hopes and aspirations?  Or would he instead find himself helpless in the face of such a gigantic entity that has become more evasive of human control and influence?  And would it still be possible to regard the good that this global society aims at as common good, considering the multiplicity and diversity of the peoples and societies it embodies?

Again, it is important to go back to what the notion of society itself presupposes.  For the existence of society is brought about by human being’s fundamental need for fulfillment, which he cannot achieve except in the context of the society and in cooperation with his fellow human beings.  Thus the justification of society’s existence can be made only with the recognition that human beings have common goals and ends.  That is to say, human being by nature aims at certain goods.  And these goods are those that all human beings commonly pursue.

Indeed, this is where the concept of common good is founded.  Common good is not something decided and determined by human individuals’ will and preferences.  Rather, it is based on who they by nature are as human beings.

Hence, even if our society is becoming more cosmopolitan and interconnected with the rest of the world, common good remains an important consideration to be taken into account.  For society, no matter how global it is, can achieve its purpose only when it serves the human beings’ common good, which transcends space and time, history and territory, race and way of life. 

Endnotes

[1] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics I,1 1094 a 1-2.

[2] See Jonathan Barnes, The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

[3] Joseph de Finance, An Ethical Inquiry (Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1991), p. 144.

[4] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, quaestio 90, a 4c.

[5] Thomas Aquinas, De perfectione spiritualis vitae, c.15 [14] lines 27-31 [637], as quoted in John Finnis, Aquinas: Moral, Political and Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p.111.

[6] Finnis, p.111.