Pluralistic Common Good

By Michael Zhou, guest writer from UWC Changshu China

Introduction

Do we still share a common good? Where is our community if there is still a “we”? It must

be admitted that the prevailing global trend of neoliberalism has drawn us apart to an

unbelievable extent that we seemingly do not share a common reason to act together.

Because of the widening wealth gap, identity politics, and political polarization, people

rarely encounter each other throughout their day and share a common life. People have

drastically different interests and are concerned about distinct social and political

problems, lacking common benefits.

According to Aristotle, all political communities join for a common goal: to maximally

make every citizen happy (Aristotle). In this essay, while recognizing the difficulty of

identifying a fixed notion for the common good given the contemporary condition because

the teleology today is not the same as that described by Aristotle, a more compatible

account is given to argue that the common good still exists, but in a different form. It

should be conceived as a plural form rather than in a fixed, single concept. It is the good

that we believe in and seeks in daily social interactions, which leads to co-deliberation and

collaboration.

Challenges to the Existence of the Common Good

We are no longer citizens of the ancient Greek polis as the boundary of “community” is

radically reshaping. In Aristotle’s sense, “the goal of political society is the common good,

i.e. the happiness (eudaimonia) of all citizens (Morrison).” However, Aristotle’s common

good is not shared by each individual. It is exclusive to the elite, a community where slaves,

foreigners, or anyone without political rights are not recognized as citizens. That being

said, the coining of “the common good” has already born the imprint of class disparity.

Aristotle specifically requires leisure in participating in politics, as it is indispensable in

personal development and a paramount factor of solidarity of citizens, contributing to intellectual communication and ‘deliberation’ among people in a political community (leisure). Only during leisure, when people are not confined by their work physically and mentally, they can think about the meaning of their lives and plan their own journey, including the common good they strive for collaboratively, more comprehensively. However, capitalism takes the place of democracy which entails civilians who possess sufficient leisure as well (Beerbohm), the ordinary working class in contemporary society certainly is not qualified, lacking the appropriate conditions for sufficient leisure.

In a time when the richest 10 percent of the world’s population possess 76 percent of the wealth and takes 52 percent of income (“Global Inequalities”), it is vital to ponder over the geographical and economic boundary of political community, letting alone the issues of race, ethnicity or gender. Thus there is no room for Aristotle’s common good to exist among the vast majority of contemporary people.

An Aristotelian conception of the common good shall be further scrutinized on a philosophical

level. We no longer share Aristotle’s teleological picture of humanity, as, nowadays, people

from distinct socioeconomic backgrounds hold radically different values and conceptions of the good, as tolerated by Rawls’ political liberalism which is “neutral between comprehensive doctrines” that include “an overall theory of value, an ethical theory, an epistemology, or a controversial metaphysics of the person and society (Courtland et al.).” However, Aristotle’s account for the common good includes a somewhat controversial and

overall theory of value and metaphysics of the person and society, and, hence, is not

neutral between controversial comprehensive doctrines. Aristotle’s common good can be achieved, but only at the expense of a great number of people’s own happiness. In this

sense, undoubtedly, it is not desirable either among the rulers of the political community

or citizens. Therefore, the common good based on Aristotle’s teleology might no longer

exist.

Living in a world with hyper-complexity, we are also unsure about the specific content of

the common good as the ‘unsurveyability’ and contingency of the conceptions of people

make the complete and comprehensive representation of the common good unrealistic to

attain (Sluga). Each element or person in this society has different views on it and

constantly reflects on their own views on the society. This is already ‘unsurveyable’ because

one could not read all of their thoughts and they may not be willing to share their complete

thoughts as well. Apart from that, every person might have views on others’ views on the

society and then compare and contrast their views to either give a compliment or critique.

After a while, they might reflect on their own compliment or critique. Undoubtedly, the

whole process is also ‘unsurveyable’. Moreover, it is undeniable that nothing is constant.

The conception of a person can always change whether it changes because of the coercion

of the state or the one’s own will. Hence, as long as there are contingencies, nothing is

stable permanently, including the common good. Adding to the unsurveyability of the

common good, its contingency makes it more difficult to determine a fixed common good.

A More Compatible Account

However, the common good does exist, as we are political animals that live together. It

exists in a plural sense and as the reason for political life.

Humans as political animals by nature desire to collaborate and act together. The common

good is something we believe in, and try our best as citizens to bring about in everyday

social interaction and political activities, so as to achieve a better community, if not

communities. A piece of good evidence might well be the Shanghai citizens’ collaboration

under the administration of the Chinese authoritarian government and policy during the

lockdown caused by COVID-19. Although citizens in Shanghai come from different cities

and classes, live in distinctive apartments or houses, and hold polarized opinions toward

this policy, when they did not have enough supply and personal freedom, they collaborated

and acted together to make everyone better in condition, such as by organizing group

shopping and developing resource-sharing platforms. Moreover, at the same time, they

created many public forums on social media to co-deliberate upon the possible means and

measures they could take to help the community and to share their concerns and view on

the Chinese zero-COVID policy. The self-organization and co-deliberation in spite of the

harsh conditions and authoritarian government successfully prove that the common good

still exists in modern society.

When we behave socially and make social decisions, there is a common good for all of us

because we act together for a reason(s) (Beerbohm and Davis). Usually, when people

initiate a conversation, they are only communicating out of self-interest, such as money,

knowledge, and the other’s appreciation. In this case, their common good might be a good

relationship that allows for taking of the personal benefits. However, sometimes, the

common good cannot be reduced to each person’s benefit. When deciding whether to fund

a sports club, the board of a school organized a public debate and then took a vote.

Regardless of which side wins, everyone in this community has a reason to accept the

reasons of the winner because they share a common good. This common good might be

order and discipline. Here, a buck-passing account is given by Eric Beerbohm and Ryan W. Davis (modified from Scanlon’s account’): “Being in the common good consists in the fact

that there are reasons to act together to bring it about (Beerbohm and Davis).”

Despite the flaws of his definition, Aristotle still made insights in pointing out the purpose

of human society. For him, “the characteristic behavior of all living things is purposive: living things do what they do ‘for the sake of an end (Aristotle).’ In a time of hyper- complexity where no single reason is responsible for any social action in a political community, and that Aristotle’s teleology does not serve anymore, people no longer act for the traditional version of the common good. In a vacuum of a single common good or the guidance for all social actions, it is more realistic to understand the term the common good in a plural form. In this individualistic society, the common goods relating to the benefit of every citizen are the guidance of all social actions because the reasons or the driving common good for each collaborative behavior of citizens is distinct from others. This form of common good ensures that each individualized citizen is closer to their own common good to which they are beneficiaries. It makes the common good no longer too vague or distant from their own good or happiness and provides a strong incentive to act together.

However, one problem cannot be ignored: embracing the idea that only this plural form of

the common good is present implies that the common good could only exist among a

relatively small group of individuals and might not exist between people in a large political

community because this conception entails that no single notion for the common good

exists among every citizen. Therefore, the world might run into chaos when the common

good(s) among different groups of individuals conflict with each other whether on a large

or small scale. This is the reality and this is the price a capitalist world has to pay.

Conclusion

Although the inequality among classes and differentiation of interests of various

fragmented groups cannot be eliminated, this essay asserts that the belief in the common

good and every motivation to act together shall not be relinquished, even in comparatively

small groups. Rather, it is advocated that the current notion of the common good should be

modified from Aristotle’s teleology to a plural form to embrace the value pluralism and

differentiated in reasons people from various groups hold for social actions and

collaborations. In a time of extreme difficulties, the common good is the reason and belief

to engage actively in politics.

Bibliography

Aristotle, and Carnes Lord. Aristotle’s Politics. Second edition, The University of Chicago

Press, 2013.

Beerbohm, Eric, and Ryan W. Davis. “The Common Good: A Buck-Passing Account.”

Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 25, no. 4, Dec. 2017, pp. e60–79, https://doi.org/

10.1111/jopp.12132.

Beerbohm, Eric Anthony. In Our Name: The Ethics of Democracy. Princeton University

Press, 2012.

Courtland, Shane D., et al. “Liberalism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford

University, 22 Feb. 2022, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#PolLib.

“Global Inequalities.” IMF, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/03/

Global-inequalities-Stanley. Accessed 30 June 2022.

Leisure: From Ancient Greece To Today. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/sociology/

development-of-leisure-from-ancient-greece-to-today-sociology-essay.php. Accessed 27

June 2022.

Morrison, Donald. “The Common Good.” The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s

Politics, edited by Marguerite Deslauriers and Pierre Destrée, Cambridge University Press,

2013, pp. 176–98, https://doi.org/10.1017/CCO9780511791581.008.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Original ed, Belknap Press, 2005.

---. Political Liberalism. Expanded ed, Columbia University Press, 2005.

---. “The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 17, no.

4, 1988, pp. 251–76. JSTOR.

Sandel, Michael J. The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? 2020.

Sluga, Hans. Politics and the Search for the Common Good. Cambridge University Press,

2014, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107705920.