The common good is one of the three tenets of modern civil society. It is a duality “between the idea of the collective good and the idea of summed individual goods.” In laymen’s terms, this means that everyone’s view of the common good is not the same. A person’s view of the common good is biased toward what they believe to be good for them. The common good is also said to be the idea of the maximum benefit for the most people. This could potentially become problematic because minority groups could be left out of this concept of the common good. This is where Alexis de Tocqueville’s concept the “tyranny of the majority” comes in. When what is best for the majority of people is what the common good strives to achieve, it doesn’t take into …show more content…
Because of the rise of individual rights in response to a state regulated belief system, the idea of tolerance, or the “way of reconciling radically divergent of human community,” or a way to find a middle ground. Tolerance is the tool with which the common good is carved out of civil society. It is a mediator between individual rights and a commitment to communal goods. Without tolerance the idea of civil society would not have a structure to stand on. Tolerance allows for discussion to occur in a democratic civil society, without this discussion one would never be able to paint a picture of what the common good for all people actually is, one would only be able to tell others what their own common good is. By enabling discussions of individual’s common goods, tolerance creates a structure for people getting together to solve problems in society which manifests in the idea of associations. Tolerance and the common good are both part of the three main tenets of civil society, the other one being individual rights. They work together and build upon one another to hold up our civil society, if any of the three tenets were to suddenly fall apart or not exist, civil society would cease to function. In addition to being interdependent on one another to form civil society, the terms also could not exist without the other. How could one explain the common good without having the ability
The way the view was presented was very vague which means that the moral of the view can be challenged. Assuming that the view is carried out in vision in which I interpreted it, it does support the common good as the most intelligent should lead the community. It is to be noted that depending on the people leading, corruption may occur and thus make the view non-compatible to the common
In America, citizens are granted their own individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine if one's own personal liberty no longer existed due to the fact that their only concern was the betterment of their society. One's self worth was no longer determined from within, but by one's peers. Many believe that the solution to the selfishness which plagues society is Altruism.
Revolutions for Enlightenment During the eighteenth century, people were angry and miserable. They sought for alternatives in the way they were living, and how they existed in society. Many minority groups revolted against their governments or people of authority because they felt as if they were being treated unfairly. In other words, the government was not treating everyone as equals. Not everyone had the right to own property, vote, and some did not have the right to freedom of speech.
Human beings must be willing to accept people or opinions different from ourselves. We recently viewed "My So Called Enemy," read "Texas vs. Johnson" by: William J. Brennan and "American Stands for Tolerance" by: Ronald J. Allen. Each piece contained profound information as how different people should be accepted even though they have different thoughts or believes. An example is when it says people should be willing to accept it even though you may not think the same.
"We, as human beings, must be willing to accept people who are different from ourselves. " How does this relate to the stories we have read? We are going to look at "The Lottery", "Texas v. Johnson", and "American flag stands for tolerance". Also we are going to talk about the acceptance characters do or do not show in these stories. In the stories many characters show the acceptance of others and many do not show acceptance.
In the case of Bill Gates, who is listed in an issue of this year’s Forbes as the richest man in the world, yet spends a decent amount of time attending to charity, we see that the ideals of collectivism can exist within the ideals of independence. Furthermore, in the U.S., our government provides us with social and entitlement programs which benefit many people and are thus beneficial to the common good. Proponents of extreme individualism and capitalism may argue against these programs, but when they or a family member suddenly need these services, it becomes beneficial to them to keep these programs alive. In the public school system, community service is generally encouraged, if not mandatory. This clearly benefits the common good, as it ensures there is a force out there working to fix up or perform services for the community, but many individuals who participated in these programs would contend (perhaps begrudgingly) that these programs benefited them mentally, intellectually, emotionally, physically, or any combination of the
However, our slow thinking machinery in our brain is well capable of analyzing such situations and avoid tribal conflicts. If our objective is to avoid wars and violence, we possess enough planning and reasoning capabilities to figure out a cooperative and non-confrontational solution to achieve that objective. The author then started looking for a universal moral objective that can help us all avoid our moral calamities. After a lengthy sequence of arguments and discussion, the author arrived at the conclusion that utilitarianism is the answer to that
“I have tried to see not differently but further…”(Tocqueville, 1835) was Alexis de Tocqueville’s conclusion to the introduction of his perennial classic text Democracy in America, and adumbrates to the reader of his modern ideas and observations that were to follow. At the same time, he measures the progress of society through its relationship with equality and liberty. In this paper, I will highlight Tocqueville’s use of equality and liberty to compare the past and the modern, and establish his views on the effects of these concepts with society and each other. Finally, I will put forth that Tocqueville does not favour one concept over the other, but notes the complex relationship between the two and the importance of the co-existence of liberty and equality for a society of people. To begin, let us build the base case to compare with and look the past as defined by Tocqueville, with emphasis on equality and liberty.
During this quarters readings we have read this year all have something to do with one very meaningful quote “we as human beings, must be willing to accept people who different from ourselves”. Each of these readings ,american flag stands for no tolerance , texas vs johnson majority opinion ,and last the lottery . All these stories relate to the quote about accepting others who differ and how we need to be willing to accept them.
The greatest good is that which brings the most happiness to the most people. This idea is very easily found in todays society. For example if you find a lost child you will help him find his parents because it will bring happiness to the child, the parents, and to you. On the other side you will not abandon the child because it will bring pain to the child, the parents, and possibly to yourself. These quick pros and cons list that we think of on a daily bases is what Mills and Bentham build their philosophy off
America, the land of the free, was founded upon the standards life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In America’s early years, Thomas Paine, in his book Rights of Man characterized this country’s government as functioning in unison with no difficulties. When you break it down and look at the big picture, some people will argue that increased diversity has brought the nation to an all time peak, in terms of unity. Meanwhile, others maintain the idea that Thomas Paine’s assessment is mistaken for what is to one day be achieved. Yet while we would like to believe in his visionary, it unfortunately does not hold true today regarding both our modern politics and social principles.
Each belief obtained in this world is mirrored by its opposite allowing those to decide which reflection they choose to abide to. In America, one’s perspective defined what each person stood for. During the Civil Rights Movement, controversy stood at the base of the country as many chose “a side” to be on as an argument of what was deemed constitutional and unconstitutional continued. However, although many may have had their separate beliefs, the common ground consisted of the principles of democracy written in the Constitution. Although, it was a less popular belief highlighted during the Civil rights movement, the whites too faced issues with the loss of their principles of democracy as the federal government continuously abused their power.
All humans are born with the abilities to grow, sense, and reason, but citizens who share in reason contribute to the common good of the
Zachary M. Zapata @01450686 zmzapata1@gmail.com or kbn739@my.utsa.edu CRJ 4013-901 Alexis de Tocqueville Assignment In the DeLeon v. Perry same sex marriage case we learned of the diversity and disparity in individual rights. As of recent, same sex marriage has become a major issue in the United States and the development of equality for all. Although there are many opposed to same sex marriage suggesting the validity of constitutionality not one individual is against the due process of law. The due process of law is derived from the 5th and 14th Amendments and were established to protect individuals civil liberties and basic rights to life.
The uniquely human capacity for group organization and collective action indeed is responsible for much of humanity’s triumphs. However, groups do not function at an optimal level when their individual parts work for a good other than that of the group. Rather, all people work towards one unified goal in the ideal group. The ultimate failure of the French Revolution and the origins of the Cold War support this assertion.