Michael W. Hannon recently made an attempt at this in an article which was the immediate occasion of the debate on the political good as honest or useful with which I began this post. Hannon defends the idea of the political good as an honest good against an argument by Robert George. Hannon too appeals to De Koninck’s general account of the common good, but when it comes to giving a particular account of what the intrinsic common good of political community is, Hannons account is not very satisfactory. Appealing to Aristotle’s politics, Hannon suggests that the good of political community is the activity of political rule itself, in which all the citizens ought to participate. But I claim that participation in political rule cannot possibly be the primary common good of political community, though it might be an element of that good.
An indication that Hannon’s view can’t be quite right is given by James Chastek, who points out that the sort of participation that Hannon is thinking of is only possible in a very small community. If the political common good is a prime example of a common good, it would be strange indeed if it could be destroyed merely by increasing the numbers of those in the community. De Koninck recalled that the very essence of a common good is its capacity to to be comunicated without diminution, as Augustine famously wrote: “the possession of goodness is by no means diminished by being shared with a partner either permanent or temporarily assumed; on the contrary, the possession of goodness is increased in proportion to the concord and charity of each of those who share it.” (City of God, XV,5)
Life in community is not reducible to ruling, though ruling is one action or component of communal life (and not necessarily exercised by all). But it seems that if the political common good is the life of the community qua community, then wouldn't I agree that in a group of people which exceeds a certain size that this is good is diminished or even destroyed?
I don't have De Koninck's text to examine at the moment, but this is my response - the character of the [political] common good as an end or final cause is not diminished by the fact that many people share this end. In so far as it is intended and willed, it is a good that is desire and willed. Nonetheless, there is a question as to whether a group that exceeds a certain size can actually attain this end in any sort of meaningful way: whether the matter is no longer proportionate to the form, so to speak.
No comments:
Post a Comment