The common good is seen as the socio-political advantage for
the majority in a specific community. However, the “good” for all can be
anything but common. The contrast in values between varying cultures makes it
difficult to universally define a moral good, so to broadly propose a system
benefiting the majority, we must base the “good” on the basic human needs
shared by all: Food, shelter, water etc. The role of human dignity in the
common good is one that differs between states, some argue that the right to
life encompasses the rights to human decencies, such as the freedom to exercise
any religion publicly and institutionally. The thought driving the aspect of
dignity is that by allowing freedom to practice cultures of their choosing,
people will come together and form a community, one that employs a sense of
duty; a responsibility to the larger framework of society. While the idea of
the common good is one of hypothetical clarity, the governance of this system
is one that often results in the peoples’ forfeit of their individual autonomy.
The allocation of resources and policy towards the benefit
of the common good should be conducted in such a fashion that it nourishes and
harvests the best out of society. In John Locke’s political philosophy, he
states that in order to understand society, we must understand a situation that
necessitates society, and create a simulation where there is an absence of such
a society. From here, we are introduced into what is referred to as mans State
of Nature, a political philosophy that states man is own his own, to protect
and defend his own (Stanford, 2005). His rights extend as far as he can reach,
and end where another becomes powerful enough to stop him. In order to acquire
objective gains, Locke indicates that men will band together to take from
another. This action will push the victimized party to band together to protect
mutual assets. However, in this there are certain rights that must be
surrendered. No longer can one man freely exercise his powers to take all that
he can, because he might use this to undermine the society that has just been
created by their mutual agreement. In this, we have what become the predecessors
to laws, doctrine, and social norms that indicate how one should act as a part
of that society. In return, one is guaranteed protection from others. This is
the basic form of society.
In this, we develop the situation where the success of such
models grow into different forms of societal models, and vary due to
multiculturalism. The side effect of this is that there often become certain
factors that prevent one from fully contributing to society, and therefore they
are not entitled or have a limited access to the same benefits of that society
because of either institutional or abstract barriers that prevent them from
this assistance. At first, it becomes very clear that man must band together to
protect their supplies of food, their shelters that they use as homes, and that
they acquire properties, distribute them, and protect them. However, in this we
also see specializations, and we see the development of markets in societies,
which leads to social classes. In the process of social classes, we begin to see
a muddled transformation of what the society truly intends to accomplish.
Here is where we see the role of government becoming an
integral part of achieving a goodness to assist in the victims of social
oppression. Ethical Altruism is a position that holds that we have a moral
obligation to do what is in the benefit of others (Britannica, 2012). It is the
opposite of selfishness and holds that our greatest benefit is the benefit of
others. From this position we extract that our greatest progression and our
most important duty is to provide for the common good of others. This position
calls for us to reevaluate the traditional mindset that we must act in our own
self-interest and holds that the barriers of society that once protected us are
now so constraining that they are constrictive upon others to a degree that is
considered oppression.
Globalization seeks to reduce these barriers that stand in
the way of social progress. Richard Fisher of the New York times expresses this
in an article he writes in which he states “Nations can no longer sit within their
borders and pursue policies incompatible with an increasingly integrated world
economy. The types of services, manufacturing and entrepreneurship that
generate national wealth are more mobile than ever, and they will forsake
countries that shackle business and labor with unnecessary burdens (Fisher,
2006).” This altruistic position taken into account with our new formed economy
forces us to ask how we shall use globalization for the common good? This is answered
by the inherently obvious statement that our future generations are
quantitatively increasing and that our future as a global society depends on
resources that grow scarcer, in certain areas, with specific uses, and a large
quantity demand. No longer can an egoist position be taken where nations choose
to economically pursue their own interest. We must look to specialization, free
trade, and the comparative advantage to reduce the opportunity cost of goods in
order to maximize resources. The common good demands that as stewards of
resources we must embrace globalization through free trade. This will allow us
to not only maximize our use of resources, but to ensure that other societies
are able to gain access to goods and services that we as well as third party
societies can provide in order to enhance the progress and living standards of
others.
According to Kent T. Saunders of Anderson
University, “Global organizations are needed to ensure that
globalization is a source of peace rather than conflict and that markets are
used for the benefit of all and the exploitation of no one. There currently
exist many global organizations that are designed to promote economic growth
and help in times of need (e.g. World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World
Trade Organization). The World Bank is “a vital source of financial and
technical assistance to developing countries around the world” with the ‘mission
of global poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards’ (Saunders,
2007).” What he intends to say in this writing is that our best form of
tackling these societal barriers would be through the use of international
organizations that set ethical standards to assist in the measuring system of
how we, on a global level, can use the market to achieve its purpose of success
and corporate growth, and harbor an environment that is equally conducive to
our charitable intent of achieving this common good.
Dr. Kamran Mofid writes in the Journal of Globalization for
the Common Good, “We view the problem and challenge of globalisation not only
from an economic point of view, but also from ethical, spiritual and
theological perspectives. Globalisation for the common good is predicated on a
global economy of sharing and community, grounded in an economic value system
whose aim is generosity and the promotion of a just distribution of the world’s
goods, services, natural resources, and wealth (Mofid, 2005).” It is here that
we see affirmation in that this is a struggle not only in how markets work, and
not simply who is to be burdened with this task, but how we are to do it. By
what means, what goals, and to what extent we are called to enhance this common
good.
Therefore,
in conclusive analysis we have seen that contrasting cultures and varying
resources invariably split nations apart just as much as the rules and laws
that each other different societies form from the beginning of the development
of societies. It is in this that we see where our most prominent flaw is
relevant, and that our use of resources, allocation of goodness, and intentions
of progress are so similar that our difference disappear before our eyes in the
light of social progress. Globalization shows us the answer to solving the
common good by sharing and moving in a direction of communal intertwinement
that embraces the comparative advantage in markets, as well as the charitable
heart of human kind. This is done through the reduction of social barriers and
the implementation of international organizations as some of the more prominent
and widely supported methods.
"Locke's Political Philosophy." (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy). Stanford University, 9 Nov. 2005. Web. 7 May 2012.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/>.
"Altruism". Encyclopædia
Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 8 May. 2012
Fisher, Richard W., and W. M. Cox. "The Good in Globalization."
The New York Times. The New York Times, 9 Apr. 2006. Web. 8 May 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09iht-edcox.html>.
Saunders, Kent T. "Globalization and the Common
Good." Diss. Anderson University, 2007. Print.
Mofid, Kamran. "Journal of Globalization for the Common
Good." Journal of Globalization for the Common Good. Purdue
University, Apr. 2005. Web. 10 May 2012.
<http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/jgcg/jgcj-about-us.htm>.
(Posted by Original Author)
No comments:
Post a Comment