Cohen is probably right that the principle of difference is a natural expression of the deliberative ideal in the context of the assumption that all citizens are equal members of the political community. But advocates of a communitarian conception might argue that the political relationship between citizens has a social dimension that goes beyond equal membership of the political community. Like the relationship between friends or between members of a sports team, the political relationship should be understood as imposing obligations on people who embody relational ideals such as solidarity and reciprocity. This means that political relations can require citizens to argue in a way that embodies these values. For example, the political relationship may require citizens to set aside their private and sectoral interests in certain deliberative contexts in order to focus on their common interests as citizens. An implicit concern for social ideals such as solidarity and reciprocity may be one of the reasons why Rawls equates the common good with the principle of the common interest and attributes to this principle a particular role in political argumentation. Originalism comes in various variants (baroque debates on important theoretical ideas rage among its supporters), but their common core is the idea that the constitutional meaning was determined at the time of the constitution`s entry into force. This approach served right-wing conservatives in the hostile environment in which originalism was first developed, and for some time thereafter. Many philosophers believe that a private society is morally flawed, even one in which private incentives incentivize people to assume all important public roles. A conception of the common good provides us with an account of what is lacking in the practical reasoning of citizens in a private society, and it combines this with a broader view of the relational obligations that compel citizens to argue in this way. The common good, which benefits society as a whole, as opposed to the private property of individuals and parts of society.
The analogy with friendship should make it clear that the common good is distinct from social justice, but is nevertheless closely linked to it. According to most of the most important traditional views, the institutions and interests that members of a political community must take care of are partly defined in terms of social justice. For example, Rousseau (1762b), Hegel (1821) and Rawls (1971) all hold that a fundamental system of private property is both a requirement of justice and an element of the common good. Similarly, in Natural Law and Natural Rights, Finnis argues that respect for human rights is a requirement of justice and that “respect for human rights is a fundamental component of the common good” (1980:218). But the common good goes beyond the demands of justice because (1) it describes a pattern of inner motivation, not just a pattern of external behavior, and (2) it can involve institutions and interests that are not general requirements of justice. The disagreement between communal and distributive notions of the common good is perhaps the most important disagreement between different conceptions and raises important questions about the nature of the political relationship. Allow me to make two general observations. Neoclassical economic theory offers two contradictory lenses for thinking about the genesis of the common good, two different groups of microfoundations.
On the one hand, the common good arises from the social gains derived from cooperation. Such a view could solve the prisoner`s dilemma to illustrate how collaboration can lead to superior welfare outcomes. Moreover, a cooperative equilibrium is stable in an iterated prisoner`s dilemma. Under these conditions, it is better for the individual to follow the path that is also optimal for society. [30] An analogy may be useful here. Family members each have different interests than individuals – for example, developing talents, pursuing relationships, cultivating career prospects, etc. At some level, the budget must be organized in such a way as to correspond to these private interests. But there are some things where the family relationship requires members to work together in a way that sets aside their competing private interests.
When the family home burns down, members must save the home without paying close attention to how resources are used in a way that saves one member`s room rather than another`s. In some areas, members should act from a community perspective, focusing on common interests that are essential to their social ties, rather than on their different and potentially competing interests as individuals. Community ideas of the common good see a similar character in the political relationship. [18] Members of a political community have a relational obligation to look after certain common interests. A “community” conception of the common good assumes that these interests are interests that citizens have as citizens, both the status of citizenship and the interests associated with this status take precedence over the various statuses and interests that make up the identity of each member as an individual.