Ms. Kelley: Thanks for a post with much to think about. I was wondering, though, whether it might help to get some greater clarity on what is meant by the now ubiquitous term in Democratic circles - "the common good." I think it gets used a lot because it sounds good, but rarely does one find any good definition of it. If we don't know what it is, then we cannot know when we are and are not advancing it. So I would value any thoughts you had on the following:

The common good is the web of relationships that individuals have with others, with institutions, groups, associations, businesses, with their environment (both natural and community), and even with their past. It is from this web of relationships that opportunity can be found for individuals. The web is common because we all rely on it to do anything, but it is not common in the sense that we all have equal access to it. Some of us are deeply imbedded in the common good, and so have access to much opportunity, whereas others are quite isolated and only marginally related to the common good. Our actions, both of individuals and also those of governments, businesses, congregations, and other groups, can either build up this web of relations, and so advance the common good, or they can break down the web, and so work against the common good. The impact of our actions on the common good highlights what you call the social and personal aspects of responsibility. The common good is a social reality, but it is either built up or torn down by the actions of people acting either individually or collectively.

So what might a common good culture look like? It would value individuality, not for its own sake but for what the individual could offer in relation to others. It would seek to reduce the isolation between human beings, neighborhoods, and nations. It would especially work to reduce the single greatest cause of human isolation - poverty. It would reject violence, except when violence is the only way to stop even greater violence being done to the common good.

Sorry. That's probably too theoretical, but whether this definition or some other, I do think we need to come up with a clearer meaning of the idea of the common good.

Ben: You raise a valid point. I just wanted to point out that the rather wonky definition of the common good that I offered above does not require any religious belief to affirm. In fact a good case for it can be made from the perspective of evolutionary biology, where it is to the advantage of a species both to promote individuality (and so discover new traits that provide adaptive advantages) and also to cooperate with the surrounding environment (thus decreasing dangerous isolation). So, I think the idea of atheists for a common good culture would make a lot of sense.

That said, I will note that for me, what I call advancing the common good is also what I think God does at a cosmic level; gathering all things together into a greater creation. If this is right, then seeking to advance the common good is also living in the "image" of God, of even doing the "will" of God.

To me, in addition to theoretical definitions, 'the common good' is concise language that serves as a placeholder for the refutation of the stigmatization of collective moral action which is the near unvarying object of conservative discourse.

As to the main comments about the link between religious experience and the pursuit of a just world -- in logical/philosophical terms, I view that link as unnecessary. And, while I would strongly object to the idea that religious and non-religious progressives can't or shouldn't work together to pursue that just world, I do sometimes think that the hunger for grandeur which seems bound up in religious feeling might be a resource that exhausts itself before the maximum possible justice has been achieved.

Ellen: The definition applies to any human group, that is why it is common. The question then becomes whether or not the group increases or decreases the common good by building up or breaking down the web or relationships. The record on the Nationalist Social party on this score requires no comment.

"Humanism has more to do with the common good than any religion. A religion defines a community as the members of their church. Humanism defines community as "the community of humanity". "

Sorry Thinking, and i mean no disprespect, but I think your comment is pretty vacuous. Where exactly in the world has pure Humanism advanced the "common good"?

The "common Good". Plato asks "What is Virtue?" "What is Justice?" "What is beauty/" and yes even "what is the Good?” in doing so is he engaged in an epistemological inquiry? It could be argued that he is in this way. Perhaps his question can be rephrased as "Can we know what Justice is?”Is there such a thing?" etc.

Thasymachus in the Republic says "Justice is that which is in the interest of the stronger" is he defining the necessary and sufficient conditions for the concept 'Justice" to apply? And if so is that an epistemological assertion?
You know that is not as easy to answer as you might think Ellen.

A strong argument can be made that in all these questions about the meaning of abstract singular terms such as Justice, Virtue, Truth, The Good, we are asking a normative question. Being that they are abstract singulars they differ from say "what is a toad?" which is a concrete term that a taxonomic biologist can define precisely by empirical means.

So it is not traditional epistemology by any means. In traditional epistemology we ask "What is knowledge?" "When do we know we have it?" "Is there such thing as Knowledge?" etc

"What is the Common Good?" does not fit neatly into the realm of epistemology per se except as rephrased in such a way as it might fit in there e.g. "How do we know when we have achieved the common good?" Even so, it seems more a question for Ethics really than a question in pure epistemology.

These divisions might be somewhat artificial but we do like to keep them around.

If the question is "Is there such a thing as the Common Good?" that can be classified as a question in metaphysics.

I tend to believe that the question of the existence of a common good is rather weak. Social/Political Philosophers rather talk about a just distribution of goods. Once you have settled on what "the good" is then you can proceed to tackle the question of a just distribution of it. Utilitarians define the good as happiness and anything that is instrumental in acquiring happiness plays a role in the distribution problem. So for example although money is not happiness (is is a material object" it is instrumental in acquiring it so it has to be considered as an item that requires consideration in a just distribution. Happiness itself is not an object but a state of mind and cannot be distributed except through mediation.

In any case, the problem of the "common good" that I see is that in a finite quantity of utiles (say at any given time period) a utile for me is one that is not available somewhere else. In short, happiness is not infinitely available. So what does "common Good" refer to if not a just distribution of the good?