J. S. Mill’s harm principle rules out, among other things, the criminalization of purely self-regarding conduct. I argue that Aristotle’s ideas, especially his claims about the interpersonal nature of justice and the importance of the “common good,” provide support for this antipaternalistic principle. I consider whether Aristotelians who are also theists can defend paternalistic and moralistic laws on the grounds that private wrongdoing is an injustice against God. I conclude that they cannot. Finally, I argue that antipaternalists have good reasons (...) to reject individualism about the common good. (shrink)

Every form of government, whether by its action or inaction, encourages certain forms of behavior and discourages others. The moral well being of a society necessitates its consideration of civil law's legitimate role in shaping moral character. In this paper, I will attepmt to argue that the Thomistic account of civil law is not merely negative, but entails a positive pedagogy that seeks to nurture the moral virtue of its citizens, for both the viciously inclined and those who are already (...) good. Furthermore, Aquinas’ theory of the common good is such that its role is not merely limited, i.e., through establishing some form of civic tranquility and providing basic goods of the material or economic order with little worry of the moral habits thus cultivated. The treatment of Thomas’ teaching on human law will not be fully exhausted in this paper. However, from examining the texts from the Summa Theologiae and the De Regno, it will appear evident that St. Thomas has provided a concise and intelligent framework for seeing and actualizing the necessary relationship between human law and moral virtue. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that there are resources in the work of Thomas Aquinas that amount to a unique approach to what David P. Schweikard and Hans Bernhard Schmid’s call the “Central Problem” facing theorists of collective intentionality and action. That is to say, Aquinas can be said to affirm both (1) the “Individual Ownership Claim” and (2) the “Irreducibility Claim,” coherently and compellingly. Regarding the Individual Ownership Claim, I argue that Aquinas’s concept of “general virtue” (virtus generalis) buttresses (...) an account of the way in which individuals act collectively qua individuals, i.e., without invoking hive minds or other scientifically problematic phenomena. Further, with respect to the Irreducibility Claim (2), I argue that Aquinas’s concept of “common good” (bonum commune) offers an account of the way in which some powers and acts of social groups are importantly irreducible to those of their members. Considered together, I argue that these two positions in Aquinas are correlative, and therefore amount to a coherent account of collective action and group agency, respectively. (shrink)

This paper seeks to elucidate the role played by the common good in John Finnis's arguments for a generic and presumptive moral obligation to obey the law.1 Finnis's appeal to the common good constitutes a direct challenge to liberal and philosophical anarchist denials of a generic and presumptive obligation to obey the law.2 It is questionable, however, whether Finnis has presented the strongest possible case for his position. In the first section I outline Finnis's account of the relationship between basic (...) goods, the common good, and the authority of law. Section II demonstrates how Finnis's emphasis upon the instrumental nature of the common good leaves his position vulnerable to Joseph Raz's objections3 that not all cases of law make a moral difference and that governmental authority is often unnecessary to resolve coordination problems. I argue that Raz's critique nonetheless fails adequately to address an alternative defense of the existence of a generic and presumptive obligation to obey the law, suggested by some passages in Finnis's work, according to which the common good is integral, rather than merely instrumental, to the good of individuals. In the final section I consider whether Finnis could strengthen his case for a generic and presumptive obligation to obey the law by adopting a more consistently robustaccount of the common good. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to clarify what is properly common to the common good and to support its irreducibility as a guarantee of overcoming an atomistic conception of civil society. We begin by addressing the notion of individual freedom and the questioning of the selfish condition of the human being. Then, we delve into the normative possibilities offered by an ethical interpretation of the common good. The difference of the common good from other notions used in late-modern discourses (...) is key in determining the intrinsic commonality of social relations. In concluding, we argue for a conception of the common good that accommodates individual freedom, understanding it no longer in isolation, but as part of intersubjectivity. (shrink)