Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To take a brief detour, I recently read a piece on evolutionary psychology which proposed a theory that aspects of the human mind that effected socialization and even stimulated collectivism and later the development of larger societal structures as well as even religions. The premise being that in early times, it was for mans benefit and survival to collect into groups and as those groups evolved in complexity that in time man grew more increasingly dependent upon the social aspects of being in groups.
As was suggested by one anthropologist, that the higher apes are able to easily form social interactions with about 50 other apes, and that the human brain while similar in many structures is 3 times as large, but also that it can easily form social interactions with 150 people. Suggesting that one of the reasons for the large human brain is for social interactions and not entirely purely cognitive and higher reasoning. I'd like to see more research on this aspect as I found it a rather fascinating subject.
I've read a similar article. I don't know if you're familiar with Broca's Brain, but I think the research presented about Broca's area in the brain, supports the social evolution hypothesis. The amount of brain matter that is dedicated to speech production and language, and its association with sections of the brain that control facial expressions and interpreting body language as well as speech language, is simply staggering. Any kind of social development is dependent upon communication ability, and it simply makes sense that communication skills led to social development which led to the evolution of greater and more complex communication skills. What's interesting is that we don't just apply these communication skills to each other. The search for patterns is an active communication skill, for instance, that we constantly employ in understanding and adapting to the world around us. Not only do we search for patterns, but we create patterns, and name them. We also develop communication and relationships with other animal species.
The two wolves would be wrong, wouldn't they? Because the "common good" is defined as something that benefits all members of a society. Since their action doesn't benefit all members, it would not be seen as the "common good". It's not all that difficult. It's the reason we have the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers certainly understood that the will of the majority is not the same thing as the "common good."
The two wolves would be wrong, wouldn't they? Because the "common good" is defined as something that benefits all members of a society. Since their action doesn't benefit all members, it would not be seen as the "common good".
Theoretically, that is the ideal. However, that's not how the "common good" plays out in practice.
Quote:
...In the face of such pluralism, efforts to bring about the common good can only lead to adopting or promoting the views of some, while excluding others, violating the principle of treating people equally. Moreover, such efforts would force everyone to support some specific notion of the common good, violating the freedom of those who do not share in that goal, and inevitably leading to paternalism (imposing one group's preference on others), tyranny, and oppression.
...A second problem encountered by proponents of the common good is what is sometimes called the "free-rider problem". The benefits that a common good provides are, as we noted, available to everyone, including those who choose not to do their part to maintain the common good. Individuals can become "free riders" by taking the benefits the common good provides while refusing to do their part to support the common good. ...If enough people become free riders in this way, the common good which depends on their support will be destroyed.
... appeals to the common good are confronted by the problem of an unequal sharing of burdens. Maintaining a common good often requires that particular individuals or particular groups bear costs that are much greater than those borne by others. ...Forcing particular groups or individuals to carry such unequal burdens "for the sake of the common good", is, at least arguably, unjust.
The sheep in GNT's analogy was forced to carry an unequal share of the burden in the "common good" goal of feeding the animals in the group. That was accomplished via a majority vote.
Quote:
It's not all that difficult.
...which makes me wonder why you are so blind to the fallacy of your position.
Theoretically, that is the ideal. However, that's not how the "common good" plays out in practice.The Common Good
The sheep in GNT's analogy was forced to carry an unequal share of the burden in the "common good" goal of feeding the animals in the group. That was accomplished via a majority vote.
...which makes me wonder why you are so blind to the fallacy of your position.
Did you read your link?
More recently, the contemporary ethicist, John Rawls, defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage".
The "common good" is an ideal. There is no, "plays out in practice."
Let's be clear. GNT borrowed a quote from Benjamin Franklin. And changed the quote for his purposes. Benjamin Franklin said, "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Read that. Did Benjamin Franklin try to say that democracy and the "common good" are synonymous? No, he didn't mention "common good" at all. GNT and you are both trying to say that "the common good" is democracy or the will of the majority. It isn't. It clearly isn't. What's best for a part of the whole but not good for the rest is never a "common good." In the sane world, at least.
GNT borrowed a quote from Benjamin Franklin. And changed the quote for his purposes. Benjamin Franklin said, "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Read that. Did Benjamin Franklin try to say that democracy and the "common good" are synonymous? No, he didn't mention "common good" at all.
Here's where you're dropping the ball and missing the connection... who, exactly, decides what the "common good" is?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
