- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 10241
‘What’s in it for me?’ is a common question today, but not one that necessarily produces the best answers for collective wellbeing'.-
Photo: Shutterstock/iQoncept Via The Conversation
We live in difficult and troubling times, facing unprecedented global challenges in the areas of climate change and ecology, finance and economics, hunger and infectious disease, international relations and cooperation, peace and justice, terrorism and war, armaments and unparalleled violence. It is precisely in times like these – unstable and confusing though they may be – that people everywhere need to keep their eyes on the better side of human nature, the side of love, compassion, trust, gratitude, and empathy, rather than hatred and injustice.
Renewing our faith in the universal character of human values and restoring that which is human to its rightful place at the heart of the globalisation process and of society, whilst directing the decision-making path towards the Common Good must now be at the heart of all we do.
Look all around you, after decades of pursuing the values of neo-liberalism such as individualism, selfishness, egotism, consumerism, and materialism-to name but a few- and the subsequent and consequent outcomes-financial collapse, ecological degradation, lower morals, higher corruption and nepotism, etc, etc- can you see any alternative but pursuing the Common Good?
Genealogy of the Common Good: A Bird’s Eye Summary
The theological and philosophical origins and sources of the common good are indeed very well documented. As it has been observed, the common good is an old idea with new-found vitality in the global public discourse. Its direct lineage includes philosophers, theologians, and statesmen from various ethical traditions. Debates about the common good allow participation by diverse schools of thought and provide a unique opportunity to build the broad political will necessary to meet today’s international moral obligations.
Even where the term itself has not appeared, the underlying values of universal human dignity and a collective approach to our greatest human challenges resonate throughout ethical traditions. The global common good challenges individual traditions to work across boundaries of faith and geography to arrive at a shared moral vision for our highly interconnected world.
Aristotle was the philosophical father of the common good. In his quest to set out the ethical precepts for developing virtuous citizens and building just societies, he developed the idea that both individuals and governments ought to work for the same virtuous goals. By bringing humanity back to its shared common good, he developed an ethical system that attempts to address the shared interests of diverse societies. Aristotle could not conceive of just government as divorced from this pursuit of the common good.
St. Thomas Aquinas played a critical role in wedding Aristotle’s concept to the Christian tradition. In addition to building on the biblical idea that one should “not seek that which is profitable to myself, but to many, that they may be saved,” Aquinas makes the important point that the common good and the good of individuals are not in opposition. In fact, “He that seeks the good of the many seeks in consequence his own good.”
Contemporary Christian sources, both Catholic and Protestant, have built on this long tradition of advocating government for the common good. Vatican II speaks of “the increasingly universal complexion” of the common good, given our growing human interdependence, and argues that we have duties not just to our countrymen but “with respect to the whole human race.”
In Protestant traditions the concept of the common good rests on similar foundations of universal human dignity and a shared responsibility to build just political systems. Old Testament injunctions to “Let justice roll down like waters” and in New Testament “Whatsoever you do unto the least of these you do unto me” exemplify religious commands to work for the common good.
The common good resonates beyond Christian traditions as well. The term has rich resonance in the history of Jewish thought and in contemporary Jewish practice. The Jewish tradition of working for justice and the common good within the covenantal community is extensive:Among the 613 commandments laid out in the covenant with Moses are injunctions to protect the disempowered, especially the poor, widows, orphans, and children. By acts of tzedakah (doing justice) the people act in accordance with God’s will and fulfil their obligations to the covenant. The related concept of tikkun olam (repairing the world) is also prominent within the contemporary Jewish community.
Like its two Abrahamic cousins, Islam is rich in ethical injunctions grounded in the idea of the common good. The presence of zakat (almsgiving) as one of the five pillars of Islam, and sometimes referred to as one of two cardinal obligations, makes it clear that an ethic of mutual support is at the core of the Islamic faith. There is a strong sense that good government is one that can provide for the poor and needy. The idea of maslaha, translated as either “public interest” or “common good,” guides governmental responsibility to provide for public needs. It has featured heavily in the writings of modern Muslim reformers throughout the Islamic world.
Just as essential to the common good as this charitable ethic is Islam’s capacity to show respect for pluralism and its insistence on universal human dignity. Humans share a fitra (noble nature) even outside of the Islamic community, and thus have access to God’s truth. Prophets are sent outside the Islamic community “so that humankind might have no argument against God” for excluding one tribe. Our human diversity is the express will of God, and as such, working together for the common good seems a natural outcome: “For every one of you, We have appointed a path and a way. If God had willed, He would have made you but one community; but that [He has not done in order that] He may try you in what has come to you. So compete with one another in good works.”
Conceptions of the common good abound in Eastern traditions as well. In all, these rich traditions of religious and philosophical thought have pervaded societies throughout the world, establishing the foundations for civilizations and governments.
In addition to its religious roots, the concept of the global common good is based in civic values that can unite our troubled world and guide our actions in serving for the common good.
Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant expressed similar truths when developing his cosmopolitan ideal of the international community. “Since the narrower or wider community of the peoples of the earth has developed so far that a violation of rights in one place is felt throughout the world, the idea of a cosmopolitan right is not a fantastical, high-flown or exaggerated notion.”
However, discovering common ties among varying belief systems is hardly the most arduous part of bridging religious, ethnic, and geographical divides. The greater challenge is to apply the ideas of the global common good to practical problems and forge common solutions. Translating the contentions of philosophers and religious scholars into agreement between policymakers and nations is the task of statesmen and citizens, a challenge to which Globalisation for the Common Good Initiative (GCGI) has adhered itself to, the purpose is not simply talking about the common good, or simply to have a dialogue, but the purpose is to take actions, to make the common good and dialogue to work for all of us, benefiting us all.
For original sources please refer to: Religion in Public Life
See also:
The Common Good*
“Commenting on the many economic and social problems that American society now confronts, Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson recently wrote: "We face a choice between a society where people accept modest sacrifices for a common good or a more contentious society where group selfishly protect their own benefits." Newsweek is not the only voice calling for a recognition of and commitment to the "common good." Daniel Callahan, an expert on bioethics, argues that solving the current crisis in our health care system--rapidly rising costs and dwindling access--requires replacing the current "ethic of individual rights" with an "ethic of the common good".
Appeals to the common good have also surfaced in discussions of business' social responsibilities, discussions of environmental pollution, discussions of our lack of investment in education, and discussions of the problems of crime and poverty. Everywhere, it seems, social commentators are claiming that our most fundamental social problems grow out of a widespread pursuit of individual interests.
What exactly is "the common good", and why has it come to have such a critical place in current discussions of problems in our society? The common good is a notion that originated over two thousand years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, the contemporary ethicist, John Rawls, defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage". The Catholic religious tradition, which has a long history of struggling to define and promote the common good, defines it as "the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment." The common good, then, consists primarily of having the social systems, institutions, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people. Examples of particular common goods or parts of the common good include an accessible and affordable public health care system, and effective system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing economic system. Because such systems, institutions, and environments have such a powerful impact on the well-being of members of a society, it is no surprise that virtually every social problem in one way or another is linked to how well these systems and institutions are functioning.
As these examples suggest, the common good does not just happen. Establishing and maintaining the common good require the cooperative efforts of some, often of many, people. Just as keeping a park free of litter depends on each user picking up after himself, so also maintaining the social conditions from which we all benefit requires the cooperative efforts of citizens. But these efforts pay off, for the common good is a good to which all members of society have access, and from whose enjoyment no one can be easily excluded. All persons, for example, enjoy the benefits of clean air or an unpolluted environment, or any of our society's other common goods. In fact, something counts as a common good only to the extent that it is a good to which all have access.
It might seem that since all citizens benefit from the common good, we would all willingly respond to urgings that we each cooperate to establish and maintain the common good. But numerous observers have identified a number of obstacles that hinder us, as a society, from successfully doing so.
First, according to some philosophers, the very idea of a common good is inconsistent with a pluralistic society like ours. Different people have different ideas about what is worthwhile or what constitutes "the good life for human beings", differences that have increased during the last few decades as the voices of more and more previously silenced groups, such as women and minorities, have been heard. Given these differences, some people urge, it will be impossible for us to agree on what particular kind of social systems, institutions, and environments we will all pitch in to support.
And even if we agreed upon what we all valued, we would certainly disagree about the relative values things have for us. While all may agree, for example, that an affordable health system, a healthy educational system, and a clean environment are all parts of the common good, some will say that more should be invested in health than in education, while others will favor directing resources to the environment over both health and education. Such disagreements are bound to undercut our ability to evoke a sustained and widespread commitment to the common good. In the face of such pluralism, efforts to bring about the common good can only lead to adopting or promoting the views of some, while excluding others, violating the principle of treating people equally. Moreover, such efforts would force everyone to support some specific notion of the common good, violating the freedom of those who do not share in that goal, and inevitably leading to paternalism (imposing one group's preference on others), tyranny, and oppression.
A second problem encountered by proponents of the common good is what is sometimes called the "free-rider problem". The benefits that a common good provides are, as we noted, available to everyone, including those who choose not to do their part to maintain the common good. Individuals can become "free riders" by taking the benefits the common good provides while refusing to do their part to support the common good. An adequate water supply, for example, is a common good from which all people benefit. But to maintain an adequate supply of water during a drought, people must conserve water, which entails sacrifices. Some individuals may be reluctant to do their share, however, since they know that so long as enough other people conserve, they can enjoy the benefits without reducing their own consumption. If enough people become free riders in this way, the common good which depends on their support will be destroyed. Many observers believe that this is exactly what has happened to many of our common goods, such as the environment or education, where the reluctance of all person to support efforts to maintain the health of these systems has led to their virtual collapse.
The third problem encountered by attempts to promote the common good is that of individualism. our historical traditions place a high value on individual freedom, on personal rights, and on allowing each person to "do her own thing". Our culture views society as comprised of separate independent individuals who are free to pursue their own individual goals and interests without interference from others. In this individualistic culture it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to convince people that they should sacrifice some of their freedom, some of their personal goals, and some of their self-interest, for the sake of the "common good". Our cultural traditions, in fact, reinforce the individual who thinks that she should not have to contribute to the community's common good, but should be left free to pursue her own personal ends.
Finally, appeals to the common good are confronted by the problem of an unequal sharing of burdens. Maintaining a common good often requires that particular individuals or particular groups bear costs that are much greater than those borne by others. Maintaining an unpolluted environment, for example, may require that particular firms that pollute install costly pollution control devices, undercutting profits. Making employment opportunities more equal may require that some groups, such as white males, sacrifice their own employment chances. Making the health system affordable and accessible to all may require that insurers accept lower premiums, that physicians accept lower salaries, or that those with particularly costly diseases or conditions forego the medical treatment on which their live depend. Forcing particular groups or individuals to carry such unequal burdens "for the sake of the common good", is, at least arguably, unjust. Moreover, the prospect of having to carry such heavy and unequal burdens leads such groups and individuals to resist any attempts to secure common goods.
All of these problems pose considerable obstacles to those who call for an ethic of the common good. Still, appeals to the common good ought not to be dismissed. For they urge us to reflect on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. They also challenge us to view ourselves as members of the same community and, while respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, to recognize and further those goals we share in common.”
*Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer
- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 3439
Within a couple days a series of events will commence at RIO+20 that could help orientate business, economics and management education and more towards the common good. This timely initiative is being led by some of my friends and colleagues at 50+20 Management Education for the World. I wish them all the best. Although, not with them in Rio, I am sure they know that I am there in spirit for the common good. What they hope to achieve is of the essence and they all deserve our support, goodwill and love.
New mindsets for society, business, leadership and management education
“For starters, we need to develop the civic organization: a new environmental, societal and economic framework that serves the global common good: the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as communities or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily.
In order to create a world where all citizens live well and within the limits of the planet, we need a different kind of society with a revised economic framework that is celebrated for its contribution to society and the world. Equally, businesses will need to become intimately involved in this transformation by accepting challenges and responsibilities beyond short-term economic performance. Right now only a few managers have the necessary leadership qualities or a sufficiently broad understanding of social and environmental issues to address the challenge…
Over the past decade business schools have been subjected to renewed scrutiny with regard to their fundamental nature and contribution to society. Increasingly, the sector is perceived as being too customer and business focused at the expense of professional orientation and public contribution. Such largely self-imposed limitations have made business schools vulnerable to public criticism and political pressure.
The problem for management education is achieving re-legitimization, particularly in the wake of corporate scandals, and recent financial and economic crises. If business schools want to attract and inspire talented students, secure political support and regain public trust, they need to start looking beyond their own interests, their faculties, and their direct markets. A particular challenge for management educators who seek to develop responsible leaders lies in the fact that management education institutions themselves will need these leaders in order to steer their own organizations through a process of transformation.”
A new vision for management education
“50+20 is primarily interested in changing mindsets. It aims to foster debate on the task of creating a world worth living in – to build a society that improves the well-being of its members, with business contributing to its success and creating leaders who will embrace the challenges.
The vision is founded on the insight that providing responsible leadership for a sustainable world is first and foremost about creating and holding a space for the incarnation of three fundamental roles in management education, namely:
Educating and developing globally responsible leaders,
Enabling business organizations to serve the common good,
Engaging in the transformation of business and the economy.
In short, management education should become a calling – a service to society. Rather than training managers for organizations that operate in the twentieth century logic, future players will act as custodians of society, holding a space for leadership towards a sustainable world. Holding such a space is about co-creation in service of larger issues, enabling participants to connect to their full potential while also reconnecting with all parts of society and the world.”
Read more:
Rio+20
THE FUTURE WE WANT: Our Common Vision
50+20
The 50+20- Agenda: “Management Education for the World”
http://www.unprme.org/resource-docs/5020ManagementEducationfortheWorld.pdf
Can Business Education and the Business Schools Advance Sustainability and the Common Good?
http://gcgi.info/news/133-towards-an-education-worth-believing-in
- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 4961
'2012 marks the Fiftieth anniversary of the environmental classic, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, so how shall we celebrate? Only five short years ago, it looked as if climate change, impending mass species extinction, habitat loss, mercury contamination, a sea of plastic, and a host of other environmental crises were about to be dealt with, if not in significant and dramatic ways, well then at least in marginal and incremental ways which would in turn create momentum for more substantial changes. Climate change was acknowledged by sizable majorities in nation after nation, even the USA. If those trends had continued we could have heralded 2012 as the fiftieth anniversary of Silent Spring in a spirit of celebration. What a difference the past five years have made, as even marginal and incremental changes have either been more meager than hoped, or not made at all, or even reversed.
'The global financial and economic crisis has rendered people across the globe, economically insecure. It is certainly possible to build an economic system, where employment and sustenance is not dependent upon economic growth. But, that is not the system which exists. And so the financial and economic crisis led to recession, and recession has led to increased unemployment and economic insecurity. And those who live in an economy where economic security is coupled with economic growth, who then are rendered economically insecure, turn their backs on other concerns such as the environment. Public opinion is then easily manipulated by those who claim that saving the environment will hurt the economy or cost jobs.
'The chemical industry is today more powerful, dangerous, and cunning than ever, from the fields of California to Bhopal, to climate change, to honey bee colony collapse, even to commemorating Silent Spring. I might not have so noticed the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s seminal work had it not been for a “gift” from a student. A few weeks prior to the end of the school year, one of my students gave me a publication called Silent Spring at 50: Reflections on an Environmental Classic by Meiners and Morriss. I tucked it away and planned to read it basking in the glory and admiration for Rachel Carson while working out one day on the elliptical machine, after the summer recess was well underway. Much to my horror I discovered that what I expected to be a work in admiration for Rachel Carson was instead a well- polished and expensive publication financed by right wing think tanks, the chemical industry and agri-business. The purpose of the publication was to trash the scholarship of Rachel Carson. The chemical industry, agri-business and their enablers have not given up and are more powerful, destructively dangerous to the earth and the fabric of life (nothing grows across wide swaths of land but for their bio-engineered products), even as they are more cunning and cleverly deceptive in their marketing and their lobbying efforts.
'The publication begins with the dubious claim, oftentimes repeated, that the legacy of Silent Spring is responsible for millions of deaths in Africa and Asia, due to what is referred to as ‘campaigns against DDT use’, even though the use of DDT has never been banned in anti-malarial efforts. It goes on to refer to human population control and concerns over technological change, particularly when the precautionary principle is invoked, as a “dark tradition”.
'One of the key points of this publication is that chemical fertilizers and pesticides together with bio engineered crops which allow for no-till farming result in higher yields per acre. This in turn is claimed to result in more land left over for wildlife and less soil erosion. Yet problems with this argument are abundant. Among the problems, being able to feed more and more people, more cheaply, doesn’t mean a higher quality of life or good health or better more nutritious food. More people on the planet in turn doesn’t mean more habitat, nor does greater yield necessarily lead to less cultivation of land and more habitat, both with people eating more and hence the problem of obesity, and with more crops being used for non-food purposes including bio-fuels and clothing. Over the past fifty years habitat loss has continued as have increasing threats to bio-diversity as well as climate change. Mechanized agriculture with its heavy use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers and carbon emissions, as well as the introduction of bio-technology has and is playing a role in all of these environmental crises.
'The publication claims that Rachel Carson was quite wrong to identify declining birth rates in various species of birds and making the connection to DDT and other pesticides. The publication cites numbers exclusively form Audoban’s Christmas Bird Count (not birth rates but total numbers) to supposedly refute her work. Meiners and Morriss cherry pick the data but also pay scant attention to ceteris paribus assumptions. They claim that Rachel Carson was not systematic in her approach to the data but offer no systematic approach of their own such as at minimum, a model of multi-linear regression.
'Fifty years after he marched from Selma to Montgomery, Martin Luther King Jr. had achieved a national holiday in his honor, even as the civil rights movement grew and grew, and continues to be extended to new areas such as rights for same sex couples. Fifty years after Mahatma Gandhi led a campaign for Indian independence from the British he is regarded as a hero and holy man internationally and nationally even as Indian democracy thrives and grows. Fifty years after she wrote Silent Spring, Rachel Carson is still being vilified by the same groups, and corporations who tried to trash her reputation back in 1962, even as the environmental movement has stalled in its ability to affect change for the better. Of course much remains to deepen democracy and civil rights throughout the world and in the United States as well, but the environmental movement really has not enjoyed as much success.
'Sure there were some important victories in the early years after Silent Spring such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, the creation of the EPA in the United States, with similar agencies created in many countries around the globe. And sure the Obama Administration recently raised fuel economy standards. But compared to what needs to be done to safeguard the environment, prevent mass extinctions, and check global warming, the environmental movement has stalled. Rachel Carson has not as yet been awarded her rightful place of honor, nor do the environment and other species have their rightful place at the policy discussion table. If the chemical industry, agri-business, and their enablers have their way, Rachel Carson and the environment will never have their due. While it would be nice to celebrate fifty years after Silent Spring with accolades for Rachel Carson, and in being able to point with pride to all manner of developments to protect the environment, preserve biodiversity, check carbon emissions, and to safeguard critical habitat, and to draw the origin for those accomplishments back to Rachel Carson, that is not reality. We do not have enough in the way of environmental accomplishments to truly celebrate. Instead if we want to honor Rachel Carson, and she truly deserves honor, it is time to get to work, and get to work rather urgently.'- Steve Szeghi*
*Steve Szeghi PhD (ECON), Professor of Economics, Wilmington College, Wilmington, Ohio, USA; Co-Author Right Relationship: Building A Whole Earth Economy, and a GCGI Senior Ambassador
......
A bit more on Rachel Carlson and her legacy of Silent Spring
Rachel Carson in woods near her Maryland home in 1962, the year in which Silent Spring was published.
Photo: Alfred Eisenstaedt/Via the Guardian
Birds were dying everywhere..'Several causes were proposed – poisons, viruses or other disease agents – but no one had a definitive answer or seemed sure of the cause – with one exception: the biologist Rachel Carson. For most of 1961, she had locked herself in her cottage in Colesville, Maryland, to complete her book, Silent Spring. It would provide an unequivocal identification of the bird killers. Powerful synthetic insecticides such as DDT were poisoning food chains, from insects upwards...'-Rachel Carson and the legacy of Silent Spring
......
ABOUT KAMRAN MOFID’s Blog and GUEST BLOG
KAMRAN MOFID’s Blog: Dedicated to the Common Good- aiming to be a source of hope and inspiration; enabling us all to move from despair to hope; darkness to light and competition to cooperation. “Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it”. —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
“When we are dreaming alone it is only a dream. When we are dreaming together it is the beginning of reality”. —Helder Camara
KAMRAN MOFID’s BLOG GUEST BLOG: Here on The Guest Blog you’ll find commentary, analysis, insight and at times provocation from some of the world’s influential and spiritual thought leaders as they weigh in on critical questions about the state of the world, the emerging societal issues, the dominant economic logic, globalisation, money, markets, sustainability, environment, media, the youth, the purpose of business and economic life, the crucial role of leadership, and the challenges facing economic, business and management education, and more.