Lately, I have been seeing various politicians and bureaucrats toss out the phrase “the Common Good” perhaps to justify their actions or simply to given us the impression that they actually cared. I have even begun to see people use the term on social media pages as if to make their thoughts or actions sound compassionate and give them some virtue points in their social circle. The point is that I don’t think most people even know what The Common Good means, much less its origins. Furthermore, I don’t believe that to say that you are doing this thing or taking this action out of your concern for the common good sufficiently exonerates you from the harm that your actions might cause in the future. This is especially true if there was substantial evidence that what you were proposing or doing would cause harm and you chose to ignore this information.
Perhaps it would be good to briefly explain what is actually meant by the term, “The Common Good” and its origins. Let’s start with picture below which illustrates the four elements of the Common Good.
The idea of the Common Good is a concept that dates back to antiquity, the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato specifically. For Plato, the best political order is the one which best promotes social harmony and an environment of cooperation and friendship among different social groups, each benefiting from and adding to the common good. (Plato Republic. 2003 London: Penguin Books. pp. 462a–b). For Aristotle, the common good is constituted in the good of individuals. Individual good, in turn, consists in human flourishing—the fulfillment of the human’s purpose—which is the right and natural thing for humans to do. (Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html. I.2.1094b7–10)
One of the earliest references in Christian literature, to the concept of the common good is found in the Epistle of Barnabas in which he says: “Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already [fully] justified, but gather instead to seek together the common good.” (this is a non-canonical letter dating from the early 1st or 2nd c.) While the Epistle of Barnabas is not part of the Canon (the bible) it was used by St. Augustine in his discussion of the Common Good, specifically in regards to his question “is the good life social?” In other words is human well-being found in the good of the whole society, the common good? (City of GOD, Book XIX). Later he concludes that the answer to this is YES.
Augustine’s understanding was no doubt influenced by Aristotle, thoughts which were further developed by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’s description of the common good has become or at least is the underpinning of most christian moral theology out of which has grown our modern code of ethics. Consider that most professions from engineering to law and medicine have a code of ethics which in varying ways prohibits the professional of doing any harm. For example, every physician recites the Hippocratic oath before receiving their diploma as a Medical Doctor.
Against that background, the common good has become the central foundation of Christian Social Teaching and I would say that until recently, our very republic. I ran across an interesting letter that was written in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII to address the crisis of the conditions of industrial workers in Europe. In this letter he argued for a position different from capitalism and socialism. The Pope advances the right to private property ownership as fundamental to the common good and the dignity of humans while at the same insisting that the state legislate a living wage for all.
There is no lack of documentation about the importance of the common good and what that means in practical terms for each person. I believe that our focus today should be on how our actions when done collaboratively with other community efforts can promote the common good for all of us. This however, requires that we avoid actions where the degree of risk exceeds that associated with the problem to be solved. In regards to today’s crisis of forcing the human population to test the safety and efficacy of a never before used vaccine technology, all without informed consent. This must be called what it is — human medical experimentation — which the last time I checked is amoral and unethical let alone against the law and a violation of our constitutional rights. Furthermore, in principal alone this violates the basic tenants of what is in the best interest of the Common Good when it comes to the dignity of the human person. However, for those who might still believe that forced participation in a human medical experiment is a contribution to the common good, I would ask them to test this idea against the following criteria.
- Is the experiment conducted such that it avoids all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury?
- Is there any a priori knowledge that the experiment being conducted could result in the death or disabling of the person?
- Is proper protection and facilities made available to protect the experimental subjects against even the remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death?
- Has the experiment been designed and based upon the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease that will justify the performance of the experiment?
- Has the experiment been independently determined by unbiased scientific professionals from across the human population that there are no other treatments available to treat the current disease and that the disease problem poses such a level of risk to the human population that there is no other possible solution than to experiment on the human population as a whole?
There might be other questions that could be posed but at a minimum these must be answered and if any of these can’t be met then the rational and justification for conducting human medical experiments because it serves the common good is false.
While you take time to ponder what I have said, I would like to draw your attention to another example of how nothing we are doing makes any sense.
In today’s news I read an article in which doctors and scientists are concerned because they have seen cases where “blown” pupils were linked with exposure to prescription glycopyrronium (Qbrexza) wipes. These are the hand wipes that have been used to “disinfect” surfaces that might harbor pathogens. What I found interesting was the level of concern that was shown for a total of six (6) cases. Now, I don’t mean to make light of these cases but, I merely wish to ask how is it that we show such concern when it comes to this issue, that is clearly linked to a toxic material in the hand wipes, but show zero sympathy for anyone who has suffered an adverse reaction to the covid vaccine?
My head spins around when I consider this because, it seems there is a big moral and ethical disconnect. Recently, Senator Ron Johnson, MD, from the state of Wisconsin held a hearing in Washington DC where he invited individuals who had experienced an adverse event following Covid vaccination to share their stories before Congress. No one, not one of his colleagues in Congress attended this hearing. The stories were heartbreaking and perhaps the most shocking thing to me was how each and every person speaking talked about how they had been shunned. Shunned and shamed by their physicians, nurses and public health officials, and in some cases friends and family. They were told that their problems were “psychological”, and that they had nothing to do with the vaccine.
Is this acting for the Common Good? Are these members of Congress who can’t even look at, much less listen to, the victims harmed by taking this vaccine, are their actions for the Common Good? I can’t even begin to understand what is going on and why so many people are turning their back on those who have been injured or harmed by this experimental vaccine.
I am drawn to something my late wife Mary wrote about the human tendency to judge and convict people simply because they are different. She said, “I am drawn to the works of Henri Corbin a French Theologian, Philosopher and mystic where he says, “When we conceive of people in terms of rules and norms, systems and organizations, then they become invisible, we lose the ability to see the divine in the face of the other, and so we lose ourselves.” She goes on to say, that, “when we see people as ‘persons’ not objects then the divine within us discovers the divine that is present in the other and in all creation. The man, woman, child before you is no longer just an object [I would add for today’s context, an object to be manipulated for profit and power] defined by our society but they become a person created in God’s image.”
Our modern culture does everything it can to stereotype people. He/she’s a redneck, or a Trump supporter, or a liberal, or she/ he’s a conspiracy wacko, or he/she’s antivaxx, etc. It is up to us to resist and work toward trying to see the beautiful person with a sacred soul that lies inside of you and in the one before you. I will close with a poem that I wrote that speaks to this revelation – when we open our eyes to divine before us. It starts, this change we want to see, starts with us.
I Saw You
I saw you
on the street, in the rain
bent over, each step
seemed like an effort.
Yet you moved, slowly
up the sidewalk.
Earlier in the day I
saw you crying
outside the bus station.
From your eyes and
heart came the sound
of such pain, a deep agony
from a well of sadness.
Last week you were in
the store, pushing
a stroller and in
anger your struck your
son. For a brief
moment I saw this
pain in your eyes,
and then it was gone.
An angel is hovering
just above the pain and
the anger — waiting to
be invited to hold our heart
if only we could pause
long enough to. . .
By: j.cowan
John G. Cowan 