Individual Liberty
and the Common Good
We have been hearing quite a lot lately from Progressives about how no one has been successful on their own; that we, as a society, are all interdependent. Consequently, the argument goes, the success of any individual is due, in no small part, to the contributions of every individual. From here, Progressives extend their argument with terms like “Social Justice” and “the Common Good”, into the notion that for the society to be truly successful, everyone must be successful. And, for this to occur, some must sacrifice so that others may succeed.
This is not a new idea. The idea of the Common Good has been around for a very long time. It is, in fact, a fundamental teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the new Pope, Pope Francis, has been emphasizing the notion of the Common Good in his earliest statements.
What exactly is “the Common Good”. First and foremost, it is a concept originated as a tool for the purpose of making moral/ethical decisions. Of course, it is not the only concept put forward for such purposes by philosophers over time but only one of several such concepts.
So, what is the definition of the Common Good? “The Catholic religious tradition, which has a long history of struggling to define and promote the common good, defines it as "the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment."
John Rawls, a Harvard philosopher, in his book A Theory of Justice, has defined the Common Good as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage". It should be noted that modern Progressive thought appears to be strongly influenced by the philosophical positions articulated in A Theory of Justice. Rawls was one of the first in the modern era to posit a sort of moral relativity by suggesting that basic principles should not always prevail but could be modified depending upon the circumstances.
At any rate, the common good is essentially a good to which everyone in a society has equal access and from whose enjoyment no one can be easily excluded. It should benefit everyone equally and should constitute a set of conditions that allow individuals access to their own fulfillment.
When President Obama said that he wanted to fundamentally change America, most people certainly did not understand the fundamental philosophical change he intended. Most thought he would try to change the way Washington politicians did business, perhaps he would put some controls on the influence of lobbyists. It was for reasons at that level that he has been elected. But, in fact, Obama’s intent is no less than to change America’s underlying philosophical/moral/ethical and judicial premises from those that emphasize Individual Liberty to those that emphasize the Common Good. His definition of health care as a human right is based on the premise of the Common Good. His notion that those with higher incomes should pay “their fair share” is based on the sacrifice of individual liberty for the common good. His notion of creating a carbon tax or regulating the use of coal out of existence, his entire environmentalist orientation is based on the sacrifice of individual liberty for the common good.
People have called Obama a Socialist, a Marxist, a Communist. While none of these labels may be technically applied to his political philosophy, what can be said is that underlying the political systems of Socialism, Marxism and Communism is the idealistic ideology of the Common Good.
There are many questions that arise with respect to establishing something as a “Common Good”. First of all, in a large and diverse community, is it even possible to determine a good that is more of a benefit than a liability to all individuals? Who is it that will determine what is a Common Good when there cannot be a large majority who agree? Are there any limits on how much individual liberty can be sacrificed for the Common Good? Are there consequences for sacrificing all individual liberty for the Common Good? Can Individual Liberty and the Common Good coexist, or must one prevail over or be subservient to the other? What is an individual’s responsibility to the Common Good? What is the Common Good’s responsibility to Individual Liberty? Is equality of income a Common Good? Is equality of opportunity a Common Good? Should some be exempt from sacrificing their Individual Liberty for the Common Good? Is equality of power a Common Good? Does Common Good make sense as a concept given everyone has different self-interests? For a Common Good to exist, is it necessary for everyone to have precisely the same self-interest in the Common Good? If there is an equality of power such that everyone has the same right to establish the Common Good, can a Common Good be arrived at?
You can begin to understand the complexities associated with establishing a Common Good. Even something so simple as establishing the right to life as a Common Good has become so complex that it has led to wide disagreements about abortion and capital punishment among other things. As one article states, “ … according to some philosophers, the very idea of a common good is inconsistent with a pluralistic society like ours. Different people have different ideas about what is worthwhile or what constitutes "the good life for human beings".... Such disagreements are bound to undercut our ability to evoke a sustained and widespread commitment to the common good. 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.” http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/commongood.html
There is another very serious problem with establishing a Common Good. “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. Finally, 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. Maintaining an unpolluted environment, for example, may require that particular firms that pollute install costly pollution control devices, undercutting profits. Making employment opportunities more equal may require that some groups, such as white males, sacrifice their own employment chances. Making the health system affordable and accessible to all may require that insurers accept lower premiums, that physicians accept lower salaries, or that those with particularly costly diseases or conditions forego the medical treatment on which their live depend. Forcing particular groups or individuals to carry such unequal burdens "for the sake of the common good", is, at least arguably, unjust. Moreover, the prospect of having to carry such heavy and unequal burdens leads such groups and individuals to resist any attempts to secure common goods.” http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/commongood.html
I would maintain that the Common Good is impossible to achieve in a just world until all people value the same thing as a common good. It is not sufficient for a majority, even a large majority to agree on a Common Good because if a fairly large minority do not agree, it cannot be justly designated as a good held in common nor even be necessarily considered a good
The Common Good is not a concept generated by pragmatic people but by idealists who wish to force the rest of the world to conform to their vision of the ideal. It tends to attempt to make uniform what is impossible to make uniform and it sacrifices individual freedom and responsibility to what I have termed “despotic idealism”.
Despotic idealism is doomed to failure on two counts. First, it is an ideal which is impossible to achieve in reality. A violence free world, a world in which obesity is eradicated, a world in which all people cooperate on an equal basis to keep the earth from warming; these are all practical impossibilities. Secondly, it is doomed to failure because it is despotic, that is, it necessarily involves the denial of human liberty in order to enforce an untenable vision.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg would be an excellent example of a despotic idealist. Because he wants mothers to breast feed, he restricts the access to baby formula in hospitals. Because he wants people to not smoke, he wants cigarettes to be hidden out of sight. Because he wants people to be healthier, he restricts the amount of sugar drinks they can purchase at any one time. He does not care how many agree or disagree with his ideal because he is convinced that his ideal is good for everyone. This requires a sort of narcissism or megalomania that borders upon the clinically diagnosable in that it sets one’s own opinions and liberty above that of others. He believes that he knows what is best for others to choose. My guess is that if others would consider his life and how he leads it, they may arrive at the conclusion that they would not make the same choices Bloomberg would make. And they might consider some of his choices unhealthy. But, unlike him, they would not have the wealth or power to restrict his choices while he can and does attempt to restrict theirs.
Those of you who have read these editorials before know that I tend not to see things as opposites but as complements. That is, I do not believe one must choose one side or another of a dilemma. To do so is to not be thinking of the dilemma in a way that makes it resolvable. Inhaling and exhaling, for example are not opposites from which one chooses only one option. Restricting oneself to either one has the same end result---death. Nor are inhaling and exhaling a compromise arrived at by the boy wherein we do a little of some and a little of the other. Rather, inhaling and exhaling are complementary processes which, when taken together are called breathing. Breathing only occurs when we do both.
So it is with individual liberty and Common Good. It is all more easily understood when we speak of it in terms of doing for oneself and doing for others. One of my favorite quotes is from the Talmudic scholar, Hillel, in which he asks the following: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, who am I?” This question points to an existential problem of humanity. How much should I be concerned for myself? How much should I concern myself with others? As humans, we have as much a need for both of these as we have for inhaling and exhaling. If we choose either, we die. We must do both not as a compromise of opposites but as two parts of an entire process called being human.
So, are Individual Liberty and the Common Good irreconcilable? Of course, not! They each speak to a portion of the human dilemma posed by Hillel. So, how does one reconcile them? First, we must recognize that with individual liberty comes individual responsibility. And one of our greatest freedoms and greatest responsibilities is our capacity to love one another. On the other hand, if one makes the primary Common Good be Individual Liberty, then we can begin to see how the dilemma gets resolved. One thing we can, indeed, get nearly everyone to agree upon is their own right to liberty. Liberty is a Common Good. One need not resort to despotic idealism to “create” a Common Good of liberty. And one need not deny an individual’s achievement (“you didn’t build that”) in order to make people aware that they have a human need for and must of necessity care for their fellow man.
The despotic idealist is, in point of fact, a person who is very pessimistic about human beings and their ability to care about anyone but themselves. They tend to ignore the multitude of ways humans cooperate and are helpful to one another. They tend to see the world in terms of oppressors and victims, the powerful and the powerless. They, in fact, do not view the world in terms of complementary interactions but in terms of opposites which they tend to label as “good” and “bad”. This is an enormously destructive mind set. By setting up a world of only good and only bad, they fail to see the manifold interactions in between and attempt to set up what they believe to be a realistically unachievable “only good” (in their view) world. Usually, those idealistic ends are only achievable through force and the curtailment of individual liberties.
When our politicians can get back to the vision of our Founding Fathers that the greatest Common Good is Individual Liberty, and that we all have a duty to God, each other and the nation, we will have found ourselves Statesmen and not politicians. Why? Because they will have understood that Individual Liberty and the Common Good are like inhaling and exhaling and both necessary for life.
