The standing of the public interest

Abstract

Liberal communitarianism holds that a good society is based on a carefully crafted balance between individual rights and the common good; that both normative elements have the same fundamental standing and neither a priori trumps the other. Societies can lose the good balance either by becoming excessively committed to the common good (e.g. national security) or to individual rights (e.g. privacy). Even societies that have established a careful balance often need to recalibrate it following changes in historical conditions (such as the 2001 attacks on the American homeland) and technological developments (such as the invention of smart cell phones). This article responds to those who reject the very conception of a common good (or the public interest) on a variety of philosophical and methodological grounds. It then asks how the American courts, in particular the Supreme Court, define the common good, what weight the courts have granted the common good versus individual rights, and what criteria they have employed in rendering these judgments in three key areas: that of free speech, public safety, and a major form of taking, that of eminent domain. To cover these vast subjects, the article by necessity employs very broad strokes. Readers may allow the author to indulge in these if they keep in mind that the article seeks to make merely a few limited points, though to make these requires covering a great deal of ground. What is considered a common good and the relative normative standing it commanded varied over history. These historical changes require a separate treatment, from society to society in the same time frame. The discussion here focuses on the modern era, in the United States.etzioni@gwu.edu I. WHAT IS A COMMON GOOD?The common good (alternatively called 'the public interest' or 'public goods') denotes those goods that serve all members of a given community and its institutions, and, as such, includes both goods that serve no identifiable particular group, as well as those that serve members of generations not yet born. It is a normative concept with a long and contested history. Philosophers, theologians, lawyers, politicians, and the public have arrived at distinct understandings about what the common good entails, how it should be balanced against individual goods, and if and by whom it should be enforced. Though there are many critics of the concept of the common good (discussed below), it has survived as a meaningful concept for well over two millennia, and continues to serve as a very significant organizing principle of civic and political life.The common good has deep roots in the history of philosophical and religious thought. For Plato 'the good' was objective, defined as that which "every soul pursues […] and does whatever it does for its sake."3 Arriving at knowledge of the good within a community would create unity, which is "the greatest blessing for a state." 4 In this conception there is no tension between the private and public good, as individuals are thought to attain happiness (a p...

Ethical paradigms in business and society

“…As a result, the non-governmental and non-profit sectors filled this empty space and, through associations, played the role of interconnecting with these people and the state. Etzioni [42] sometimes also with the private sector, so NGOs activities could offer more appropriate services and negotiate fair prices [38].…”

The Budget and the Classroom

“…A glance at any newspaper reveals a picture of large cities, smaller urban areas, and even rural areas riven by deep‐seated conflicts, suspicions, resentments, and isolation. Similarly, while the authors take into account that people may hold different views on what they believe is the common good, they ignore the large literature that discusses how the concept may be defined and applied in practice (e.g., Etzioni ). In any case, haven't budgeters (with certain exceptions) always believed that they were serving the common good?…”