I completely agree with you insofar as your goals and objectives are concerned. I am all for alleviating the plight of the poor, downtrodden and persecuted.
However, I disagree insofar that you contend, or may contend, that we have a long tradition of believing in advancing the common good.
Examples: 1) At the time of the founding Father's, one had to own real property to be permitted to vote. Any white man, who did not own land could not vote.
2) John Calvin, and the Calvinism that was his legacy, held that the great majority of the populace was predestined to go to hell. The belief that must people would go to hell was conducive to a contemptuousness for the poor and oppressed.
3) You cannot find the words democracy or democratic in our constitution. Indeed, we did not start to use the term fondly until the 1930's. As late as the 1920's, many Americans chastised democracy as rule by the rabble.
4) Lord Salisbury said in the 1880s or 1890s that expanding the franchise would destroy the England he loved: Poor people he feared would vote for leftists who would confiscate what the rich had. This idea did not die when Lord Salisbury died. In the 2012 pres campaign, Romney said that 48 percent of the electorate got "checks" from the govt. (Soc security, etc. : I don't think the number is that high). As such, he said that our political system consisted of hordes of grasping, non productive bums leeching off of the productive and brilliant elite.
5) Thomas Jefferson said that homosexuals should be castrated. Of course, that's a different issue than the common good. However, it is still relevant to what I am trying to say. When one goes back, back into the past, one will find that the ideas and sentiments of men were often much coarser, meaner and more violent. I think we tend to have an excessively high valuation of our historical figures (EG. Thomas Jefferson said that black people Smelled because they had poor kidney function and excreted some urine through their sweat pores - and you can't excrete urine through your sweat glands) Your quote from Adams was commendable, but I think the sorts of quotes we have been taught to associate with the Fathers of our country are the exception to the rule in so far as the characters of these guys are concerned.
This whole dissertation is meaningless. The notion that there exists a “common good” apart from the exigencies and concerns of individual citizens is preposterous and is nothing more than an attempt to inculcate to individual members of a society the priorities that one holds to be prominent an any given time. Individuals in any group have different notions of what the “good” is based on what they need. The notion that any one can define or dictate a “common good” is in itself preposterous. What needs to be accepted is that any attempt to invoke the “common good” is nothing more than an attempt to impose a particular notion of one’s own proclivities on everyone else without their consent.
All humans have the same basic needs that include adequate shelter, food, non-poisonous water, relative safety (Maslow's hierarchy of needs). And a civilized government provides for or provides the means for its citizens to fulfill those needs. Roads, bridges, social security, medicare police and fire departments, environmental laws, are just a few examples of government providing for the common good, and our collective tax dollars provide the money to implement those services. Adequate food, water, shelter and safety are not typically considered merely personal "proclivities", they are needs common to all humans in different degrees.
I do think our country has a long tradition of advancing the common good, but that tradition is sporadic and is beefed up or diminished depending on who is in power. I'm also attempting to discuss the "common good" in terms of public service—either volunteer or compulsory — so our youth can clearly see that those that live in our country share common goals and have to work together to achieve them. As I chose a postitive statement from a founder of our country to highlight my point, one can easily choose and highlight the negative positions taken (to say the least), but how does that move us forward, together?
I completely agree with you insofar as your goals and objectives are concerned. I am all for alleviating the plight of the poor, downtrodden and persecuted.
However, I disagree insofar that you contend, or may contend, that we have a long tradition of believing in advancing the common good.
Examples: 1) At the time of the founding Father's, one had to own real property to be permitted to vote. Any white man, who did not own land could not vote.
2) John Calvin, and the Calvinism that was his legacy, held that the great majority of the populace was predestined to go to hell. The belief that must people would go to hell was conducive to a contemptuousness for the poor and oppressed.
3) You cannot find the words democracy or democratic in our constitution. Indeed, we did not start to use the term fondly until the 1930's. As late as the 1920's, many Americans chastised democracy as rule by the rabble.
4) Lord Salisbury said in the 1880s or 1890s that expanding the franchise would destroy the England he loved: Poor people he feared would vote for leftists who would confiscate what the rich had. This idea did not die when Lord Salisbury died. In the 2012 pres campaign, Romney said that 48 percent of the electorate got "checks" from the govt. (Soc security, etc. : I don't think the number is that high). As such, he said that our political system consisted of hordes of grasping, non productive bums leeching off of the productive and brilliant elite.
5) Thomas Jefferson said that homosexuals should be castrated. Of course, that's a different issue than the common good. However, it is still relevant to what I am trying to say. When one goes back, back into the past, one will find that the ideas and sentiments of men were often much coarser, meaner and more violent. I think we tend to have an excessively high valuation of our historical figures (EG. Thomas Jefferson said that black people Smelled because they had poor kidney function and excreted some urine through their sweat pores - and you can't excrete urine through your sweat glands) Your quote from Adams was commendable, but I think the sorts of quotes we have been taught to associate with the Fathers of our country are the exception to the rule in so far as the characters of these guys are concerned.
This whole dissertation is meaningless. The notion that there exists a “common good” apart from the exigencies and concerns of individual citizens is preposterous and is nothing more than an attempt to inculcate to individual members of a society the priorities that one holds to be prominent an any given time. Individuals in any group have different notions of what the “good” is based on what they need. The notion that any one can define or dictate a “common good” is in itself preposterous. What needs to be accepted is that any attempt to invoke the “common good” is nothing more than an attempt to impose a particular notion of one’s own proclivities on everyone else without their consent.
All humans have the same basic needs that include adequate shelter, food, non-poisonous water, relative safety (Maslow's hierarchy of needs). And a civilized government provides for or provides the means for its citizens to fulfill those needs. Roads, bridges, social security, medicare police and fire departments, environmental laws, are just a few examples of government providing for the common good, and our collective tax dollars provide the money to implement those services. Adequate food, water, shelter and safety are not typically considered merely personal "proclivities", they are needs common to all humans in different degrees.
I do think our country has a long tradition of advancing the common good, but that tradition is sporadic and is beefed up or diminished depending on who is in power. I'm also attempting to discuss the "common good" in terms of public service—either volunteer or compulsory — so our youth can clearly see that those that live in our country share common goals and have to work together to achieve them. As I chose a postitive statement from a founder of our country to highlight my point, one can easily choose and highlight the negative positions taken (to say the least), but how does that move us forward, together?