Abstract
In Chapter 3 the ideal common good was explained as a philosophical concept, an unattainable ideal used as a standard against which imperfection may be measured. The practical common good is a provisional end, not a final one. Once broad objectives formulated under it have been achieved, the time has come for fresh objectives to be formulated which constitute a reordering of the practical common good, in the light of a realised potential for improvement. The potential common good is thus a practical judgement of what the common good would be like if human beings were improved in various ways according to their potential for improvement: if they were made more rational, more moral, more knowledgeable, though still within the limits of human imperfection. Intellectually and morally there is normally not one potential only, but ever further potentials ahead once some gains have been made. In this perception there is a generalizing of individual differences among persons: more accurately the potentials are individual, not common potentials for a given population. But in the generalized perception, if it were established that the large majority of human beings the world over are a-moral, or act morally only out of fear of social disapproval or to win social approval; are fundamentally persons of desire or appetite rather than persons of reason; and are vastly ignorant of the world about them beyond the home, the workplace and their recreation locations; uninterested in conservation, apathetic about world political tensions and the possible consequences of war, the practical common good would be a heightening of public awareness in each of these respects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man (Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1974) p.145 (first English edition, 1791).
UN Information Centre (UNIC), Urban Land Policies and Land-use Control Measures, vol. vii (New York: Global Review, 1975) p. 2.
A similar system still operating in some countries is that of communal tenure, whereby rights in land are not held exclusively by those who use the land, but rather by members of a community, which may be a family or a village or a collective: an individual has a right of use, but not a right to decide how the land is to be used by him. See A. W. Ashby, Public Lands. An FAO Land Tenure Study (Rome: UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 1956).
R. Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1974). For Nozick’s entitlement theory, see ch. 7, p. 151.
UNESCO Office of Statistics, Reflections on the Future Development of Education (Paris, 1981).
T. S. Eliot, Dante (London: Faber and Faber, 1929) p. 17. (Dante’s description of his rapid flight from the Inferno to Purgatory, led by his companion Virgil, is an instance of this imaginative quality.)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1987 Leslie Melville Brown
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brown, L. (1987). The Potential Common Good: The Challenge to Education. In: Conservation and Practical Morality. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08527-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08527-9_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-08529-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-08527-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)