The Conception Of The Common Good

In the “Gospel of wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues that it is the duty of the wealthy entrepreneur who has amassed a great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those less fortunate. Greed and selfishness may force some readers to see these arguments as preposterous; however, greed is a key ingredient in successful competition. It forces competitors to perform at a higher level than their peers in hopes of obtaining more money and individual wealth. A capitalist society that allows this wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few might be beneficial to the human race because it could promote competition between companies; it might ensure health care for everyone no matter their social standing, and parks and recreation could

If you examine a vehicle, you may agree that it is greater than the sum its parts. Individually, the engine, battery, tires, steering wheel, and steel body can’t haul a teen to school or an associate to work like they can when they are all working together as a cohesive unit. Just like any vehicle, the common wealth of a community is greater than the needs of the individuals that make up the community. When the individuals of a community entangle themselves in a web of wants and selfish desires, they tend to loose sight of the well being of the people who surround them, the environment in which they thrive off of, and, in the long-run, themselves. In conjunction, author Scott Russell Sanders’ article titled “Defending Our Common Wealth” highlights these points as well as emphasizes creating a new vision of wealth, encouraging community over consumption and consumerism to his audience.

Situations where self interest and public interest work against each other are known as “commons problems.” In the market model the chief source of conflict is individual’s perceived welfare vs. another’s perceived welfare. In the polis model the chief source of conflict is self interest vs. public interest, or “how to have both private benefits and collective benefits.” Stone notes “most actions in the market model do not have social consequences” but in the polis, commons problems “are everything.” It is rare in the polis that the costs and benefits of an action are entirely self-contained, affect only one or two individuals, or are limited to direct and immediate effects. Actions in the polis have unanticipated consequences, side effects, long-term effects, and effect many people. Stone states, “one major dilemma in the polis is how to get people to give weight to these broader consequences in their private calculus of choices, especially in an era when the dominant culture celebrates private consumption and personal gain.” That is a

Andrew Carnegie believes in a system based on principles and responsibility. The system is Individualism and when everyone strives towards the same goals the system is fair and prosperous. Carnegie’s essay is his attempt to show people a way to reach an accommodation between individualism and fairness. This system can only work if everyone knows and participates in his or her responsibilities. I will discuss Carnegie’s thesis, his arguments and the possible results of his goals.

‘Society ensures social justice by providing the conditions that allow associations and individuals to obtain their due.’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1928).

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.

Wealth can be defined as a surplus. This surplus is distributed among a society. The distribution creates associations among the people of the society with respect to wealth. The Gospel of Wealth, written by Andrew Carnegie, describes two classes and the association of wealth between them. Adam Smith’s passage, Of the Natural Progress of Opulence, similarly, includes a reciprocal relationship of production between the town and country. Unlike the other essays, Marx’s, Communist Manifesto, debunks the separation of classes and urges equal distribution of wealth and, The Position of Poverty, Galbraith’s composition, emphasizes the importance of wealth in the public sector to abolish poverty. The essays all have a common structure of the distribution of wealth and include some insight on how to maintain the distribution or how to alter it so that it is more beneficial to society. Carnegie, Smith, Marx, and Galbraith explain the distribution of wealth and it’s affects on society.

better than one, the acceptance of common good is better for others than the greed of own

     Sir Thomas More writes, in his book Utopia, about a society that is perfect in practically ever sense. The people all work an equal amount and everything they need for survival is provided. Most importantly is that everyone living in this perfect society is happy and content with their everyday lives. In this society everybody supports everyone. The community is only as strong as its weakest link. For society to progress everyone must work together. Opponents of the Utopian system, however, feel that the strong should not have to look after the weak. Progress would be maximized if all the resources are spent on the people most qualified to help society. A Utopian society, as perfect as the one

Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.

In this essay I will assess and evaluate Mill’s concept of justice through the principles of utility. I will argue to defend Mill’s attempt to reconcile justice with the utilitarian principles he has explained by first summarizing these concepts and by proving utility.

Common good, as what we have learned, is an act of love. Love that comes from respect for others and respect for oneself. We have also learned that common good means you have to give up those things which you have in excess in order to create an equality among persons because God created us as equals.

Inequality and inefficiency are universal issues plaguing society that countless economists have attempted to understand and address. Distinguished economists such as John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman have developed their own theories of to achieve distributive justice, or a fair allocation of resources for all members of society. In Rawls’ justice as fairness and Sen’s capability theory, the economists come closest to achieving plans of distributive justice that retain the output-promoting effects of compensating differentials and recognizing the costs of Okun’s leaky bucket, but a plan that retains Rawls’ social contract and Sen’s capability focus would come closest to achieving justice.

The theory of Utilitarianism states that actions should be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. It weighs the rightness and wrongness of an action based on consequences of that action.

There are many different approaches to the justice of distributions in societies and there are arguments that can be made to support each of them. Three types of approaches are distribution justice based on a distributive approach that was introduced by John Rawls, emergent which was advocated by Robert Nozick and a market democratic hybrid supported by Tomasi. This paper will illustrate the basic premise of each of these approaches and the impacts that they have on the economics of a society. After briefly explaining these three approaches to just distribution I will demonstrate why Tomasi 's "Free Market Fairness", or the democratic hybrid approach, is the most logical and productive way to achieve justice of distributions while having a