What is the common good?

What does it take to achieve it?

People talk a lot about doing things for the common good, but nobody can precisely define it. Ask 10 people and you will likely get 10 different answers.  You will also find a great deal of disagreement about what actions society should take to achieve this nebulous aim. Conceptions of the common good and how to achieve it depend on many factors including upbringing, education, culture and religious beliefs.

Sometimes, our visions of the common good clash. Some people view maintaining “traditional marriage” as imperative for advancing the common good. Others embrace different views on marriage and familial relationships. Some believe society must prevent people from consuming certain substances – foods, drinks or drugs – for the common good. Others believe people should decide for themselves. Some believe equalizing incomes furthers the common good, while others understand free markets best promote economic prosperity.

If people freely pursue the common good as they see fit, these divergent points of view don’t create too many problems. People cluster together in communities with similar values. Those who passionately believe in a particular course of action employ education and non-coercive persuasion to convince others to embrace their visions. But when people come to believe they have the moral authority to start imposing their conceptions of common good on others, problems arise. In order for them to advance their vision for society, the must resort to coercion, force and violence.

This discussion recently came up regarding vaccinations. Sharon believes the common good demands government force vaccinations into everybody. But some people think the risk of vaccinations outweigh the benefit. They don’t want to inject a potentially harmful substance into their bodies, or the bodies of their children. Sharon thinks these people are nuts. And they might be. Nevertheless, what gives Sharon the moral authority to force another person to do something against their will?

“The common good!” she insists.

Sharon seems to think she holds some position of moral superiority that allows her to demand that everybody conforms to her conception of the common good. Never mind that some people think mandatory vaccinations may actually prove detrimental to the common good. Sharon knows she’s right. Therefore, the government should enforce her will.

When I made this observation, Sharon asked if I felt subjected to other people’s moral superiority when I wash my hands or cover my mouth when I cough. Of course, I don’t, because nobody threatens to throw me in a cage if I don’t do it. My mother and others taught me, and I recognize the value of basic hygiene, both for myself and for the “common good.” So I cover my mouth when I cough, and I wash my hands, just like I vaccinated my kids. Nobody has to threaten to punch me in the head in order to convince me to wash my hands.

Therein lies the rub with Sharon’s position. She isn’t necessarily wrong about the value of vaccinations. The problem is the punch in the head she’s willing to deliver to an individual in order to advance the common good.

Let’s look at it from another point of view.

As I already mentioned, a lot of people sincerely think society must maintain”traditional marriage”  for the greater good. They use government power to define marriage and shape family structures – cutting out and even punishing people who hold a different set of marriage values. So, what’s the difference between forcing people to conform to a particular conception of marriage and forcing people to vaccinate? Fundamentally, the only difference lies in the perception that vaccination promotes the common good and maintaining traditional marriage does not. In fact, Sharon thinks restricting marriage to a narrow definition actually diminishes the common good. Therefore, her worldview  justifies using force to promote the one end, and not the other.

Boiled down to the simplest terms, Sharon believes she holds morally superior views. But she can’t wrap her head around the fact that traditional marriage proponents and anti-vaxers believe just as strongly they hold morally superior views.

The problem with Sharon isn’t her aims. It’s the fact that she believes the moral superiority of her aims justifies using force, coercion and violence to achieve them. Sharon views her vision of the greater good as so desirable, so self-evident and so compelling, she’s willing to physically punish those who challenge or defy her worldview.

C.S. Lewis offered a grave warning about such people.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Ironically, Sharon expressed horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency. She call him “unfit to hold power,” and “dangerous.” Why? Because she doesn’t believe in his vision of the common good, and she recognizes he now controls the mechanism to impose it on her.

This brings us to the ultimate question: is it moral and ethical to use coercion and violence (or the threat thereof)  to force your neighbor to do your bidding? If it is…well then I suppose we will continue this wrestling match for power, and both sides can live in perpetual fear that the next Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will take control and impose their will on them.

If you agree that force, violence and coercion are not moral/ethical ways to interact with your neighbors, I would implore you to start looking at other ways to make the world a better place than using political processes and the power of the state to impose your conception of the greater good on the world. It’s always wise to remember that every tyrant in history claimed to be acting for the greater good.

Consider Pol Pot. He killed some 1.5 million Cambodians. He believed it was justified – for the common good.

“Everything I did, I did for my country.”

Photo by Jason Rogers via Flickr.