Grounding Economics on the Common Good

CRESPO, RICARDO F.

Estrasburgo

Jornada; 2nd International Conference "Economic Philosophy"; 2014

Université de Strasbourg

The ?common good? is an old and traditional expression that manifests interest in the others. It has become a buzz word, but it has also been used in so many different contexts that, far from univocal, its meaning proves baffling at best. This paper will dig into the original ?classical notion of the common good?. Conceived by Aristotle and developed later and further by St. Thomas Aquinas, this notion has been widely used for centuries. To explore the specific meaning of common good in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, the first section will introduce Aristotle?s conception of it. Aristotle never used this expression. However, in Politics III, 6 and 7, he refers to the ?common interest? (koinê sympheron), noting, for example, that ?governments which have a regard for the common interest are constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice? (1279a 17-18). As a result, Mary Keys (2006: 3) calls him ?the founder? of ?common good-centered political theory?. In a nutshell, Aristotle views the common good (or end) as eudaimonia for all citizens, who are political animals, and, thus, only achievable within the polis, the common good is the end of a just polis.   Aquinas? developments (Section 3) refined and enlarged Aristotle?s notion, inserting stronger ideas of natural law and inclinations. Section 4 will address the different meanings of common good in the twentieth century. It will also appraise the liberal, the totalitarian, and the communitarian versions of the ?common good?.   Given that the classical version of the common good implies an anthropological position and a theory of goodness, Section 5 will extract the content of the good for man from Aristotle?s works. Life, sociability, theoretical and practical knowledge, freedom, communication and participation and work appear as the main elements of a theory of the good. Section 6 will deduce specific policy implications from the previous definitions.   Finally, Section 7 will analyze two current economic theories from the point of view of their relation with the common good: economics of happiness and the capability approach (CA). Concerning the former, the conclusion is that in order to effectively focus on and address happiness, the economics of happiness should pay attention to and adopt the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia. More than an economics of happiness we need an economics of eudaimonia or of flourishing.   Sen?s CA comes close to considering the theory of common good. However, it does not do so in the classical way. In Sen?s view, CA is consistent with diverse individual theories of the good: this implicitly implies that common good is not understood in classical terms. Now, this results from his conception of human nature. For him, individual identity is constructed and not discovered. People have the power of self-definition. Thus, for Sen, we cannot prescribe a set of goals without falling in a paternalistic or authoritarian stance. Martha Nussbaum, Des Gasper and Irene van Staveren have viewed Sen?s recent emphasis on freedom with fear and suspicion, particularly in Development as Freedom. In their opinion, Sen has always concerned himself with poverty and inequality and, now, they complain, he has abandoned his first love to defend freedom. The conclusion is that the CA would benefit from the adoption of the classical theory of the common good to effectively enhance the living conditions of individuals. Section 8 will present a brief conclusion.