How to Measure the Common Good
Philip Kotler
In 2019, I published Advancing the Common Good. My aim was to help citizens choose those decisions that advance the Common Good. I relied on Jeremy Bentham’s measure of the Common Good: If a proposed policy makes more people happy than unhappy, that policy advances the Common Good. The whole idea is that a good society aims to maximize the number of happy citizens.
However, I am realizing now that more is needed to assess whether a proposed policy advances the Common Good.
Let’s consider five policies that might impact the Common Good.
Would society be better if citizens could not own guns or be better if citizens could freely have guns?
Would the society be better if women were not allowed to have an abortion or if women have the right to an abortion?
Would the society be better if private citizens could be banned from smoking or free to smoke
Would the society be better if gambling was banned or gambling was allowed to everyone?
Would this country be better if it did not accept immigrants or is open to immigrants?
The Need to Consider Intermediate Solutions
Notice that each example requires choosing between two extremes, such as no guns or many guns, or no abortions or many abortions. Ex-President Bill Clinton would call these “false choices,” We do not need to accept an either-or choice. We can imagine other alternatives to each extreme. Instead of choosing to completely ban something or completely permit it, why not prescribe the conditions under which a limited ban can be permitted.
As for guns, instead of a complete ban, give people the right to own a gun if certain condition are met. The conditions are: 1. Person has no criminal or behavioral problems. 2. The gun cannot be an assault weapon. 3. The person cannot own more than three guns. 4. Guns must be kept under lock and key. 5. Guns cannot be carried into public places. This intermediate solution will increase society’s happiness. A small number of persons might be unhappy about these restrictions. But a huge number of persons will be happy because they can buy and own a gun. The total amount of happiness is increased.
As for abortion, it should not be totally banned. Pregnant women are free to choose an abortion under the following conditions: 1. The pregnancy is not more than 24 weeks. 2. If the pregnancy is more than 24 weeks, abortion is still allowed if the pregnancy would endanger the woman’s life. 3. If the woman was raped, she can choose an abortion. This intermediate solution increases happiness because more women can choose abortion under the right conditions.
As for cigarette smoking, a person is allowed to smoke under the following conditions: 1. Cigarette packages clearly state the dangers to health. 2. Smoking won’t be allowed in offices, factories, hospitals, public conveyances, airports, or airplanes. 3. Smokers must remove themselves if one more nearby persons object to the smoke. More people may benefit from this decision than are hurt by this decision,
As for gambling, people are allowed: 1. To gamble in their homes. 2. Gamble in casinos that are set up for gambling. 3. Casinos must agree to discourage excessive gambling by specific individuals.
As for admitting immigrants into a country, the following conditions must be met: 1. The country accepts immigrants who have no criminal record, who apply through the normal channels, and who have sufficient funds to not need public aid. 2. The country gives preference to those immigrants who bring a new needed skills or come with sufficient funds to open one or more new businesses. 3. The country gives preference to immigrants who have close relatives who are Americans citizens.
Other Considerations
Putting total bans on some activities appeals to some groups because it is simpler to legislate and enforce. Yet total bans are likely to make more people unhappy than happy. Moving from total bans to modified bans is likely to increase the total net happiness of that society.
The fundamental problem is that issues and debates involve more than just the choice’s impact on total happiness. Many other issues arise. How do the different choices impact the person’s feelings of identity and self-esteem. One’s choices affect the quality of the person’s relationships with his or her family, friends and acquaintances. Many issues spark moral questions of compassion, liberty, and privacy. All this makes measurement of an issue’s impact on the Common Good difficult to measure.
Consider the issue of “climate change.” One group says that there is no climate change, another that there is some minor climate change, and another that there will be disastrous climate change. What evidence can be gathered to support each positions’ view of the Common Good?
Consider the issue of “taxing the rich.” One group opposes taxing the rich with the argument that taxing the rich will slow down economic development and hurt the Common Good. Another group favors taxing the rich with the argument that the money will be used to increase the spending power of the poor and increase the Common Good.
Clearly groups will disagree on what is the Common Good. Yet it is important that debaters raise the question of the Common Good. Each side must answer how they see their choices’ impacting not just on themselves or their group but also whether it elevates or diminishes the Common Good.
