Question about a definition

[Michael19682]

Our religion is imbued with the notion of a “common good.” How does the definition of common good - should anyone like to supply his/her definition of it here - relate to a definition and understanding of a broader definition of “normality”.

(this thread likely shares a dimension with Social Justice but I want the philosophers to weigh in first before I migrate it over there)

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Shike]

Our religion is imbued with the notion of a “common good.” How does the definition of common good - should anyone like to supply his/her definition of it here - relate to a definition and understanding of a broader definition of “normality”.

(this thread likely shares a dimension with Social Justice but I want the philosophers to weigh in first before I migrate it over there)

Thanks in advance for your help.

Okay, I’ll start off by some rough statements.

If you take the definition of normality as the consensus of the majority or what usually happens then the common good is not the same as normality. In fact, it could very easily be that what is taken as normal is not part of the common good at all.

If you take normality in the sense of what it means to be human, or human nature in general, or essences, then the common good involves the normality of every individual. It never compromises that normality (never goes against it or frustrates the purposes or contradicts the natural moral law) of any single individual.

 

[Michael19682]

Okay, I’ll start off by some rough statements.

If you take the definition of normality as the consensus of the majority or what usually happens then the common good is not the same as normality. In fact, it could very easily be that what is taken as normal is not part of the common good at all.

If you take normality in the sense of what it means to be human, or human nature in general, or essences, then the common good involves the normality of every individual. It never compromises that normality (never goes against it or frustrates the purposes or contradicts the natural moral law) of any single individual.

That is a very impressive definitional situation, and I would like to know more.
In that vane, (could) I say that the death penalty is wrong because it frustrates or compromises the normality (of your 2nd definition) of the convicted (i.e. ends his temporal existence)? But in that case only: what about lesser temporal, non capital punishment? Does not incarceration or any kind of restraint excepting where the individual benefits from it also frustrate the normality of his/her life (presuming the normaility there means simply having freedom from intimidation and being able to worship God freely)?

Again, I agree with your starting point (if that is what a definition is) and also with many of its uses in discussion. I am now piqued in curiousity as to where and how we as a society draw lines or make thresholds about social justice issues. For example, taking your definition I could say that (…since God has redeemed the world…), it is not possible to frustrate the aim of his plan of salvation since he is infinitely more powerful than our errors qualified as against others as opposed to as against our own souls, which only we ourselves may damn through rejection of his plan for us! So it seems that a man who is due to recieve this universally acknowledged injustice of death penalty, is actually better off than his cell mate not so destined by injustice if and only if the former knows God and the latter has, for all his relative freedom, rejected him?

None of this contradicts your definition. But if one uses your definition as foundation for social policy, it looks like we run into a conundrum of the moral sort.

 

[Gaber]

Our religion is imbued with the notion of a “common good.” How does the definition of common good - should anyone like to supply his/her definition of it here - relate to a definition and understanding of a broader definition of “normality”.

(this thread likely shares a dimension with Social Justice but I want the philosophers to weigh in first before I migrate it over there)

Thanks in advance for your help.

The idea of “common good” may be viewed as a low-voltage cousin of the reason behind the Great Commandments and the Golden Rule in its several forms.

 

[Shike]

None of this contradicts your definition. But if one uses your definition as foundation for social policy, it looks like we run into a conundrum of the moral sort.

Thank you for the response. I like the different questions you raise. But before I get to my reply I just want to say that I didn’t intend to give a definition in the strict sense. I only wished to provide some statements as a rough starting point.

That is a very impressive definitional situation, and I would like to know more.
In that vane, (could) I say that the death penalty is wrong because it frustrates or compromises the normality (of your 2nd definition) of the convicted (i.e. ends his temporal existence)?

I wouldn’t go so far and say that. One purpose or end of Government is to promote justice. Given certain circumstances it may be the lesser of two evils to exercise that authority to kill a man. I say kill instead of murder because murder is the killing of innocent human life. Presumably in capital punishment the criminal is not innocent. In sum, killing is not necessarily the frustration of Government’s purpose but can in some specific cases be used to carry it out.

But killing is never a good thing. Hence there must be some very weighty circumstances present that make it permissible, even perhaps circumstances that limit the situation to only one other option that is worse than the capital punishment of a murderer. Blessed Pope John Paul II, if I am not mistaken, also believed that capital punishment could sometimes be justified in principle. However, he thought that in the modern world the dire circumstances that would make capital punishment a lesser of two evils was not present and therefore he thought that it was wrong.

Also, should we not strive for mercy anyways? Yes. We should look for opportunities to show mercy… but we must do so without being stupid, by not showing mercy to someone who we know will take advantage of us. Therefore, though in this day and age the death penalty might not be permissible it should not be the case that such criminals should go unpunished and unimpugned. Does that mean life in prison or something less? I don’t know, it is definitely something up for reasoned discussion.

Oh, and if you want some interesting posts on the topic of capital punishment than I recommend that you check out Edward Feser’s blog: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholicism-conservatism-and-capital.html
Here I link to just one post but use the search feature to find more.

Take care,
Michael

 

[couponfit]

Our religion is imbued with the notion of a “common good.” How does the definition of common good - should anyone like to supply his/her definition of it here - relate to a definition and understanding of a broader definition of “normality”.

(this thread likely shares a dimension with Social Justice but I want the philosophers to weigh in first before I migrate it over there)

Thanks in advance for your help.

Well, on a sidebar, common good can be seen in this example: An atheist told me that catholics are mean to Homosexuals because putting down homosexuals is wrong. Thus, common good is when an even an atheist realizes there is a outside source from which we conclude there is a common morality that all must follow.

 

[Michael19682]

Well, on a sidebar, common good can be seen in this example: An atheist told me that catholics are mean to Homosexuals because putting down homosexuals is wrong. Thus, common good is when an even an atheist realizes there is a outside source from which we conclude there is a common morality that all must follow.

Took me a minute to understand or guess, as it may be, but sounds like you are saying that two wrongs make it right?

 

[Shike]

Took me a minute to understand or guess, as it may be, but sounds like you are saying that two wrongs make it right?

I don’t think he’s saying that. I think he’s making a more general point that by the very nature of the Atheist’s declaration that ‘putting down others is wrong’, that the Atheist is recognizing some source of morality that is outside of his own person.

I the like point. However, by itself I don’t see it as proving much to someone intent on screwing with the moral law, philosophically anyways.