Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T17:32:47.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Common Good and the Open Society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Louis Dupré
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term common good has been used in so many ways that it would be difficult to find any political thinker, however individualistically oriented, who has not, in one form or another embraced it. The classical definition, formulated in the Middle Ages on the basis of Aristotelian principles, referred to a good proper to, and attainable only by, the community, yet individually shared by its members. As such the common good is at once communal and individual. Still, it does not coincide with the sum total of particular goods and exceeds the goals of inter-individual transactions. Once the idea of community lost its ontological ultimacy (mainly under the impact of nominalist thought), a struggle originated between the traditional conception of the community as an end in itself and that of its function to protect the private interests of its members. Eventually the latter theory prevailed and, after it became reinforced by resistance movements against repressive national government policies, it led to a doctrine of individual rights as independent of society. The intellectual and moral pluralism of recent times has made theorists reluctant to attribute any specific content to the notion of a common good. At a time when national communities face an increasing integration with one another in a world of dwindling resources, such a privatization seems inappropriate. The article argues for a restoration of an idea of the common good which incorporates individual rights without separating them from their social context.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , Fall 1993 , pp. 687 - 712
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This essay also appeared in Catholicism and Liberalism, ed. David Hollenbach and Bruce Douglass (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

1. Consiglia De Matteis, Maria, La teologia politica communale di Remigio de'Girolami (Bologna: Patron, 1977), cxxiii.Google Scholar All references to this edition of the text of De bono communi.

2. Ibid., p. 42, also p. 15.

3. Ibid., p. 30.

4. Ibid., p. 39.

5. Teselle, Eugene, “The Civic Vision in Augustine's City of God,” Thought 62 (1987): 268–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarHollenbach, David, “The Common Good Revisited,” Theological Studies 20 (1989): 70–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. De Koninck, Charles: De la primauté du bien commun, contre les personnalistes (Quebec: Laval University Press, 1943), p. 8.Google Scholar

7. On the controversy and the necessary distinctions, see Froelich, Gregory, “The Equivocal Status of Bonum Commune” New Scholasticism 63, no. 1 (1989): 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Maritain, Jacques, The Person and the Common Good (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

9. Summa contra Gentiles, III, 17.Google Scholar

10. In I Pol. lect. 1.

11. Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 90, 2.Google Scholar

12. De regitnine principum I, 14.Google Scholar I owe this reference as well as the next qualification to a set of lecture notes, “Stoic and Christian Sources of Mediaeval Social Doctrine” by I. T. Eschmann, O.P., which, to the best of my knowledge, was never published.

13. Summa contra Gentiles, III, 80.Google Scholar

14. Maritain, , Person and the Common Good, p. 7.Google Scholar

15. ST, I-II, q. 21, 4, ad 3.

16. Finnis, John, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), pp. 220–21.Google Scholar

17. Finnis, , Natural Law and Natural Rights, p. 154.Google Scholar

18. Fortin, Ernest, “The New Rights Theory and the Natural Law,” Review of Politics 44 (1982): 590–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Similar objections might be leveled against Maritain's theory of natural rights conceived as prior to any social incorporation. See Crosson, Frederick, “Maritain on Natural Rights,” Review of Metaphysics 36, no. 144 (1983): 895–912.Google Scholar

19. On all the complexities of this process one may consult De Muralt, André, “La structure de la philosophie politique moderne d'Occam a Rousseau” in Souveminetéet pouvoir. Cahiers de la Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 2 (Genève, Lausanne, Neuchatel, 1978): 3–84.Google Scholar I have greatly profited from this penetrating essay.

20. See the introduction by Mcgrade, A. S. to Hooker, Richard, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1975), pp. 11–40.Google Scholar

21. “Alio modo consideranda est hominum multitudo, quatenus speciali voluntate seu communi consensu in unum corpus politicum congregantur uno societatis vinculo, et ut mutuo se juvent in ordine ad unum finem politicum, quomodo efficiunt unum corpus mysticum, quod moraliter dici potest per se unum” (De legibus III, chap. 2, no. 4). See also Gierke, Otto, Natural Law and the Theory of Society. 1500 to 1800, trans. Barker, Ernest (1934) (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957), p. 243Google Scholar, especially Barker's footnote.

22. Defensio fidei VI, chap. 4, # 1 ff. I follow André de Muralt's interpretation in D'Occam à Rousseau, pp. 60–65.

23. See Allen, J. W., History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1960; orig. London, 1928), p. 282.Google Scholar

24. As John Finnis does in Natural Law and Natural Rights.

25. Fortin, Ernest, “The New Rights Theory and the Natural Law,” p. 595.Google Scholar

26. See Halevy, Elie, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism, trans. Morris, Mary (Clifton, NJ: Augustus Kelley Publ., 1972), p. 138.Google Scholar

27. Paine, Thomas, The Rights of Man (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1973), p. 434.Google Scholar

28. Elliot, Jonathan, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1907)Google Scholar. Quoted by Novak, Michael, Free Persons and the Common Good (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1989), p. 50.Google Scholar

29. On the “commercialism” of the Founders, see Pangle, Thomas L., “The Constitution's Human Vision” Public Interest 86 (Winter 1987), 85–88.Google Scholar

30. Novak, , Free Persons and the Common Good, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar One may, of course, question whether the modern use of the term “liberal” in America still corresponds to the insights of the Founders. The period beginning with Jackson and culminating in the First World War places a dominant emphasis on economic values whereby, in my judgment, America in practice rejoins the British tradition. Novak himself stresses the economic aspect of the American revolution, calling it “a new type of economic system” (p. 46) to a degree that weakens his position on the political significance and the need for self-sacrificing civic virtue so prominent in the early documents.

31. Murray, John Courtney, We Hold These Truths (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960), p. 38.Google Scholar

32. Toqueville, Alexis De, Democracy in America, trans. Lawrence, George (New York: Doubleday, 1969), p. 237.Google Scholar

33. Maclntyre, Alasdair, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), p. 336.Google Scholar

34. Is this agreement still present in those whom Nicholas Capaldi calls new-style liberals who ground their principles in a teleological theory of participation? Or has the term “liberal” ceased to function as a useful category, since it has come to embrace virtually opposite principles? Capaldi, Nicholas, Out of Order: Affirmative Action and the Crisis of Doctrinaire Liberalism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1985), p. 5.Google Scholar

35. Fukuyama, Francis, “The End of History?” National Interest 16 (Summer, 1989): 3.Google Scholar

36. Douglass, Bruce, “Liberalism as a Threat to Democracy,” in The Ethical Dimension of Political Life, ed. Canavan, Francis (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1983), p. 29.Google Scholar

37. Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

38. Mcbride, William L., Social Theory at the Crossroads (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1980), p. 99.Google Scholar

39. Dupré, Louis, Marx's Social Critique of Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 210–15; 281–85.Google Scholar

40. Dupré, Louis, Transcendent Selfhood (New York: Crossroad, 1976), p. 17.Google Scholar

41. Finnis, , Natural Law and Natural Rights, p. 154.Google Scholar

42. Ibid., p. 211.

43. See Clifford Kossel, S.J., “Global Community and Individuality,” Communio VIII/1 (1981): 37–50.Google Scholar

44. Sherover, Charles, “The Temporality of the Common Good,” Review of Metaphysics 37―3, no. 147 (1984): 492.Google Scholar

45. Kossel, Clifford, “Global Community,” p. 44.Google Scholar