The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionTime to preach about the 'common good'
by Maureen Fiedler on Sep. 03, 2010
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus was at Glen Beck’s event on the Mall last Sunday, asking people why they attended. A quote from one woman she interviewed stunned me. “…My freedoms are lost. To be able to preach anywhere we want, to have God in our schools, to drive any kind of car we want and if I want to drive a gas guzzler, I can, if I want to eat a lot of sugar and salt, and I shouldn’t be forced to buy medical care… to be able to burn the kind of light bulb I want…the list goes on.”
In other words, “freedom” to her means having her own way, no matter what the common good demands.
“Having God in our schools” probably means prayer -- with her God -- in public schools, regardless of the feelings of those of other faiths, or no faith. It means driving any kind of car and using any kind of light bulb, regardless of her carbon footprint on our planet in an age when climate change is reaching a critical stage. And although no one is stopping her from eating a lot of sugar and salt (however detrimental to health), she does not want to buy into a system that will keep medical costs down for everyone when all that sugar and salt sends her to a doctor or emergency room.
This is individualism run amuck. It’s been part of the American psyche for centuries, and so her point of view is heard often in public discourse, usually not this baldly, but often nonetheless.
What this underlines for me is the need to resurrect, and preach about, the Catholic value of the “common good.” Of course, Catholics don’t have a corner on this value… it is shared by Jews who revel in the prophets, millions of Protestants, most Muslims, and those of many other traditions. And there certainly can be legitimate disagreements about what constitutes the “common good.” But as a value, it is rarely expressed in our public discourse. Maybe that’s because it is rarely expressed, and explained, from our pulpits.
Maybe that's because both
Maybe that's because both Left and Right take for granted, instead of discussing, and use pitiful tactics like emotion and rhetorical questions instead of reason.
But that's par for the course with organizations that rely on tax breaks while claiming to speak "prophetically against Caesar".
What a joke religion is.
Oh, what an excellent
Oh, what an excellent article! Thank you so much for expressing the need for a resurrection of the concept of the 'common good' so cogently. Now let us all, from the pulpit or not, start talking about the need for it to reenter our consciousness.
Glen Beck is not concerned
Glen Beck is not concerned about the common good. He follows the philosophy of Ayn Rand, with greed and selfishness as the greatest virtues. Dick Armey is another follower of Ayn Rand. Beck has great appeal for my Tea Party Catholic friends, and perhaps their bishops.
http://www.alternet.org/story/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and...
As usual, Ayn Rand and her
As usual, Ayn Rand and her philosophy are explained by someone who clearly does not understand either. It is a shame that this is the case, since Objectivism is not, at its heart, a difficult concept to understand. But, understanding is not what is sought after here, but rather, character attacks seem to be the purpose of this comment, and falsehoods about Ms. Rand and her philosophy the instrument of those attacks.
To combat those falsehoods, we can simply examine Objectivism.
First of all, Objectivism is not about greed or selfishness, but rather about happiness and rational self-interest. The basic tenet of Objectivism, as far as human beings go, is that man is an end unto himself, and not the means to the ends of others. The highest moral purpose of a person's life is to pursue his own rational self-interest and happiness.
Too often we define ourselves by our relationships with others and the community, too often we praise others who seemingly willingly, sacrifice their own happiness to the happiness of others. What Objectivism teaches is that I am under no moral obligation whatsoever to sacrifice my own happiness or self-interest. However, if helping others makes me happy, or I believe that helping others will bring me the greatest happiness (i.e. eternal beatitude in Heaven), then my purpose should be to live a life that will result in my attaining that happiness.
Man does not derive his value from the value he has to others, nor does he derive his meaning from how much he helps, or does not help, others. Rather, I possesses inestimable value and meaning in and of myself, and there is no greater moral obligation than to pursue my own happiness (which, as Thomas Jefferson reminds, is one of the three highest unalienable rights which God has blessed each person (not the community) with: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). Objectively, man has great value and that value is not based on subjective perceptions.
As to the question of the "greater good", let me respond to that with some of Ayn Rand's own words:
"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."
Sounds pretty well directed to the common good (though Rand would never use such a phrase). "Men deal with one another...as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit". Is that not the point of the "common good", that each person benefits and that as a result the community benefits and prospers?
I cannot speak to Mr. Beck or Mr. Armey and their opinions of Objectivism, but I can only hope and pray that they do embrace this philosophy and that more and more political, social and religious leaders will also, for the greater good of all mankind.
Dear Maureen, your summation
Dear Maureen, your summation was worth the price of the whole piece. Thank you for that.
Almost daily I read comments
Almost daily I read comments similar to those of the quoted woman in the letters column of our local Connecticut newspaper. Where is this preoccupation with all-for-me and none-for-you coming from? Why can we not share the fruits of our labors with each other?
The selfish attitude about health-insurance, for instance, puzzles & vexes me; many protesters already benefit from Medicare & Social Security & yet are angry & fearful about including "THEM" (which means me, actually) within the tent.
Some letters to the editor even refer to Communism as underlying government involvement in taxation & health care. In other words, "the common good" has become a dirty word, a phrase associated with Communism.
I hear nothing from the local Catholic pulpits or bishop's office about the common good. The bishop, his priestly cadre, & the congregations are too involved with protesting abortion to worry about other legitimate life issues.
Excellent comments, anon.
Excellent comments, anon. Couldn't have said it better.
I've got a "Called to the Common Good" bumper sticker on my car....and I do get confused and/or unsmiling reactions. Only one man (in 4 yrs) has told me that he 'liked' my sticker! Just trying to help turn the corner to an awareness of what the 'common good' REALLY is. (or at least help the discussion along without all this emotionalism).
I am not a tea partier, and I
I am not a tea partier, and I support Obama's health care plan. At the same time, the United States was founded on the principle that the individual has an awful lot of autonomy from the state. Too much emphasis on the "Common Good" as defined by group "X" takes away that autonomy.
"Common Good" initiatives that I can't stand are:
-Seat Belt laws (I usually use one, but dont like being forced)
-No smoking in bars (I have never smoked in my life)
- Mandatory biclycle helmets for children (never used one when I was growing up, why cant the state trust me with this issue regarding my children)
Too much "Common Good" is not good for anybody
What's the point here? is it
What's the point here? is it this:
50 million abortions, keep that legal. Who cares about protecting the inalienable right to life. But ban gas guzzlers, ginger ale, and bacon.
Unfortunately the slaughter
Unfortunately the slaughter of innocent babies is not on Sister Fiedler's list of priorities.
Along with the need to preach
Along with the need to preach about the common good, we need to also preach about subsidiarity. We need to remind everyone that the best way to meet the needs of the society is to meet the needs of the individual and the best way to do that is to meet those needs at the most immediate level.
If a person needs health care, for example, then it should fall first and foremost to his or her family and friends to help meet that need. IF they cannot, then it should fall to his or her parish or church or temple or mosque, or other local charity. IF they cannot, then to the local government, etc. Federal government should be invoked as the soure of ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, not the first resort as President Obama and his lackeys support.
There is nothing moral about providing health care at the point of a gun, as the US government is seeking to do. There is nothing at all moral in taking my hard-earned money, the just wages of my just labors, (for you Marxists out there!) via confiscatory taxation and then redistributing that money. There is nothing at all moral about giving people something like health care without expecting something of them in return. Doing so creates a permanent dependent class, a class of people being treated like children -- actually, like infants, since when kids are given an allowance it is usually in response for certain expectations being met. That cannot be to the common good. There is nothing moral about the government doing my charitable activities for me (which is what confiscatory and redistributive taxation is all about).
The times when America has prospered have been those times when each individual was given the greatest freedom to act in pursuit of his own happiness. The times when the common good in America has prospoered have been when the individual was left alone by the govenment and not regulated into obedience and groupthink.
If you are truly interested in the common good, then you need to support the drastic scaling back of government intervention in the lives of the individual.
Keep medical costs down for
Keep medical costs down for everyone? Even people in the Obama administration are abandoning that lie. The common good is achieved when everyone is free to pursue his own interests! The Soviet Union attempted to make everyone equal and protect everyone's feelings and the result was the attempt to eliminate God completely and produce misery on a profound scale. Do a little reading of the history of Eastern Europe, Ms Fiedler. Ann Applebaum is an excellent author if you would like to see where your misguided recommendations can lead. Also, you might do well to remember that the Church has condemned socialism, and global warming is not at a critical stage.
Post new comment