when placing aside an obligation or general principle, I feel that the common good should take precedence over self-interest because a person would not beable to acheive their basic self interest's such as protection, food, money to buy food and everyday utilities of life.

doggy

I think this is interesting...that is, that this is the current Lincoln-Douglas debate topic in the National Forensics League. Currently, I'm preparing cases for the topic, and later on in life, I will share those ideas. I will say, however, that I side with the neg more often than not.

when speaking against common good, i make the argument that everyone has a different appeals to what is the common good, so its impossible to be valued. For example, Hitler thought the common good for germany was to kill all jews and other races he did not like, so he killed them. Is that really a common good - - yes to him, but not to all - so - what does everyone eles think??

doggy

The same argument could be made against working for one's own gain: can it be said that every person is of sound enough mind to make the right decisions as to what is good for them, and is their definition of good compatible with how other people see it? I'm sad to see that post on this debate, because now we've slipped into a "What is really good?" debate, and I'm sick and tired of all the gobbledy-gook, redundant postings from people who use big words and long posts to argue about the "pragmatic value of good" or whatnot. Can we please strike that argument from the record for the sake of this debate?

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." - H. L. Mencken

If we set the standards of self-interest to providing themselves basic needs of living. The argument can be droped about how u say that every person is of sound enough mind to make the right decisions as to what is good for them, and is their definition of good compatible with how other people see it? - Because everyone has the same interest for survival - and only the community can provide that i.e the common good.

doggy

I have a hard time understanding what people mean by "the common good." For one, how are we to define the "common good" when every individual has entirely different needs?

And if there is such a thing as "the common good," then who's going to do the deciding on what that is? When have humans ever, in the history of our species, been able to agree on anything common?

No, there is no such thing as "the common good" in my opinion.

quote:

---

When have humans ever, in the history of our species, been able to agree on anything common?

---

- in response - humans have come to agree on one thing - and that is survival. PEOPLE NEED PROTECTION. And without protection - a person cannot acheive their needs as an individual - and only a promoted community can produce this.

doggy

"humans have come to agree on one thing - and that is survival." So that is to say everything in humanity is a function of survival?

*********************

Language is nothing more than shared normative conception that 2+3=5.

quote:

---

- in response - humans have come to agree on one thing - and that is survival. PEOPLE NEED PROTECTION. And without protection - a person cannot acheive their needs as an individual - and only a promoted community can produce this.

---

I think I may agree with you, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by "protection." Protection from what? From the mystical superstitions (Satan, Ahura Mazda)? From the biological community? From themselves?

There is a community that supports this (of course, I don't like the word "support" in this case): tribalism. But this is not a moral sense or a religious "better good" argument.

I can't say that I understand what you mean by "protection." Perhaps I could come up with a better response if you could clarify.

As for the survival thing--most certainly, humanity's actions should be based on the need to survive (what tribalism is for). But this cannot be "forced" in the morality, where no one can agree. This must appeal to people.

I have a problem when we try to take any argument to a moral/ethical level. It's when we cross over to morality that the argument takes a turn and nothing is accomplished, leaving us in an illogical limbo; a maelstrom of arguments.

A society must be engineered to conform with natural (not moral) laws, in order to promote survival. I think that this engineering would surprise most people as to how it promotes what they feel to be "the common good."

isn't it true that the common good is a self-interest.....or the common good is an interest pursued by individuals. So if the answer is yes- doesn't that mean that self-interest should be valued above the common good because the common good is a product of self interest.

doggy

It depends upon the value of the common good: rational self-interest would be the integrity to hold to personal values rather than sacrifice them for the majority (or as in politics, Totalitarianism).

Grant.

Stella Splendens
December 22, 1985 - March 27, 2003
RIP
...Always.