"For even if the good of the community coincides with that of the individual, it is clearly a greater and more perfect thing to achieve and preserve that of a community; for while it is desirable to secure what is good in the case of an individual, to do so in the case of a peopleor a state is something finer and more sublime."
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics. The Object of Life - (ii) The Science that studies the supreme good for man is politics. Written some time before they invented the telelphone.
Hint of Hobbes in there, eh?
Yes. Sublime it is.
However, what happens when people among the community involuntarily take part but are forced to for the "greater good?" Who determines what is "good" for such people? In a sense, do we not ration the term "good?" Moreover, what happens if those in charge of supplying the greater good to all are corrupt fools?
If many or some (majority or minority) among a community don't subscribe to this (ie not voluntary), then it's all an illusion if we do it anyway. For we have not really achieved the sublime but the "what ought be is crammed down our throats."
I bet I'm the only blogger to connect Henning (hey, gotta keep my Canadian content up), with Aristotle.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.