Conception Of Common Good

Collective action problems arise in politics because as individuals we are conflicted between our own interest and the interest of the group. Our choice is either to be selfish or cooperate with the group. “It involves building, combining, mixing, and amalgamating people’s individual goals” (Lowi, et al. 13). There are three main theories as to why collective action problems exist. First, according to Mancur Olson individuals are tempted to free-ride which is getting a benefit without contributing to it and that no individual is incentivized to work for the collective good. (Lowi, et al 571). Free-riding becomes a bigger issues as a group gets larger. Second, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is a theory in which there are two individuals in a situation were neither has an incentive to cooperate although both would be better off if they did cooperate. Third, the tragedy of commons occurs when individuals’ use of a resource causes its depletion however it’s supposed to be shared by everyone. Collective action problems are difficult to solve because a group is formed to achieve common goals however as individuals we have different objectives and preferences. This is most evident in politics. My goal in this paper is to provide three different solutions to collective action problems in politics specifically in political parties, electoral process and interest groups.

The lottery in this country is a big past time for Americans. It gives hope to the hopeless and disappointment to a multitude of participants. A quick view of statistical information regarding the lottery shows that out of all people who take part in this country wide phenomenon, each individual person has a 1 in 175,223,510 chance of hitting the jackpot (AmericanStatisticalAssociation.org). The author of “Against The Odds and Against the Common Good”, argues that the state lotteries are “urging people to gamble”. Gloria Jimenez, of whom is the author of “Against The Odds and Against the Common Good”, creates assumptions that support her stance on her argument. Jimenez also uses the viewpoint from people who disagree with her logic, by stating various counter statements that contradict her stance. To fully understand Jimenez, we have to view the different factors of her stance on why states should not be urging people to gamble, assumptions that she makes to support her stance and countering views of people who don’t necessarily agree with her argument.

As a human being, our ability to consider something is extraordinary due to our needs and wants. “Once people see that they 've been divided into groups, they 'll act accordingly, even if they know that the divisions are as meaningless” (Berreby 10). Is it necessary for us to divide ourselves according to who is better and not? The group of people are frightened to speak on their own behalf and appoint an opinion, due to the fact that other people will criticize them that they are

A successful economy is perhaps the most key ingredient leading to a successful nation. An economy is a delicate balance of many different conflicting and coexisting elements. Naturally, an economy’s success can often be measured by the amount of wealth it contains, not to mention the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of its distribution of the wealth. Effective distribution of wealth is no easy feat. Wealthy and poor people will always need to coexist- this is an inescapable truth. The government’s job in many cases becomes that of a referee. Naturally, perfect peace and harmony between two totally different classes would be a utopia, and probably will never be completely achieved. A government must, therefore,

The previous passage proves that the constitution’s ideal representative that holds some sort of power and status in government need to be educated and wealthy. To sum it up, those who are already in congress are those who decide who’ll be apart of government, and make decisions that will affect our country. This will further create a division amongst classes and tension between the upper and middle class will diverge from one another.

This may result in the favored group oppressing the lesser class by use of possessions and status. “But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.” (The Federalist Paper: No 10) Those favored by the government may consolidate to oppress those lesser than them. “In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign in as a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger…” (The Federalist Papers No. 51). James Madison wished for the government not to favor any one group or status, but to take into consideration the thoughts and opinions of the minority as well as the

A common good is defined by the fact that it is beneficial for a whole society, not just for a certain individual, as in the case of private propriety (Lee, 2015). The common good is based on the belief that certain goods (as security) can be obtained only collectively and through political means. If in a society formed of a multitude of individuals we would have only private propriety, in time the economic power would concentrate in the hands of a few and the life of the many would be unbearable. Let’s just think to a poor individual which would not have the power to buy for itself a propriety, or would not even be capable to move freely in the world because the freedom of movement would imply that he has to pay taxes when crossing the proprieties of others.

Arguments proposed by the Grandees in the simulated debate included justifications and further defense of the original Grandees’ arguments. The chief topics to focus on include the importance of immovable property and vested interests, the threat of anarchy from universal incorporation, and the essential definition of tacit consent. All aspects of these arguments set out to make the demands of the Levellers appear unobtainable at the time. When analyzing each topic, the drastic difference of the Levellers and Grandees are discovered, along with certain similarities that make both sides appear not so different in ideology. Most importantly, each argument was essential to democracy then, as they are in today’s modern society.

In his Article, “The Range of Justice”, Gerald Gaus Explains that there will likely never be one vision of a “just society” Due to this, Gaus concludes that instead individuals have the responsibility to learn tolerance towards others whose views may be different than their own. This “moral maturity” is essential to understanding that we live in a diverse society that will likely never come to share a single conception of what is best for society as a whole, and to understand that they may be forced to live under policies and/or practices with which they may not agree.

Even today, divisions in groups have been as a result of continued differences among the uniting groups. Humans have a tendency to incline towards the protection of their interest’s aid favors of their perceived groups. Such favourism makes them advocate fully for their interests posing a challenging opposing side to the interests of their unperceived groups. Many nations today are faced with such opposing groups having differing interests and ideals. People advocating for similar ideals tend to create strong ties of

When I think about a political community, I usually associate it with elections, politicians, and advertisements that bad mouth candidates from the different political parties. Politicians try to persuade citizens to vote for them by making promises that they may never fulfill. But a political community is more than that. A comparison of Aristotle and John Locke’s nature and purpose of a political community has given me a new insight. I learned that, even though the political community is responsible to provide security, its main purpose is aimed for the highest good of all its citizens, which is virtue and happiness.

The Common Good is also very prevalent in Catholic social teachings. Jesus main message to his followers is to always be righteous, treat people equally, and to have concern for the welfare of others. Both the politician and Catholic social teaching worlds can be compared since both share the same values. In the ancient and modern political world, politicians share similar values with their citizens as did Jesus. Both worlds value “respect for the human person” and “peace, stability, and the security of a just order” (CoC 2). Respect of individuals are present in the job description of politicians. Politicians take an oath of serve their communities to the best of their ability and to respect the opinions of their citizens. In Catholic social

it should be stated that simply because it is possible for a military body or government have the possibility or ability to make an action that is for the common good, it is not guranteed that the people in charge of making this decision will choose to do so. Corruption personal benefits and misinformation will continue to alter people's thoughts, decisions, and actions for as long as they exist. I believe that while it is not guaranteed, it is possible for actions or decisions that are for the common good to exist; and while there may be problems with some solutions, that the possibility foes exist for governments and or military bodies to make decisions for the common good during

As a society, we have the innate response to run to the larger organizations to get things done. When we see poverty-stricken families out on the streets, rather than asking what we could do as a society, we turn to the government and scrutinize them for not providing enough welfare for those who live in poverty. The principle of subsidiarity promotes coming together for the common good, it promotes a sense of responsibility for your own community. It advocates for a strong relationship in a community, coming together as a society, taking responsibility for what goes on in our community, and getting our objectives done. Subsidiarity thus bears this positive imperative to preserve, protect and create new effective mediating structures in

The parties in the original position function as representatives of actual citizens in society. However, unlike actual citizens, the parties in the original position lack certain specific social facts that would bias their decisions on what the best possible principles of justice would be. Hence, in the original position, individuals are thought of as lacking certain knowledge, behind a veil of ignorance, and as guided by rational choice. The parties in the original position then choose the founding principles of justice that will guide the institutions of an actual well ordered society.