Re: the right and the good

>Dear Ed: your response is one I expected and is current in the literature
in
>political philosophy. THere the idea is that while some agreement on "the
right"
>is possible, people's ideas of what the "good" is vary widely and are not
>subject to rational analysis. In response I will borrow the next move in
that
>debate and say we need at least a minimal conception of
good/self-realization if
>our pol phil is to be a rational one. How can we plan to acquire x when we
don't
>know what x is?
>
>By a minimal conception of the good is meant goods that are necessary
whatever
>other good one wants. Health might be a good example. Whatever one wants,
health
>is a necessary condition of getting and enjoying it. So socialized health
care
>might be a goal for a wp.


I agree with you.  As societies, we do have to recognize a set of common or
collective demands which must be met even if meeting them constrains the
rights of individuals to fulfill their own demands.  To continue and remain
viable, a society must function at a collective as well as the individual
level, and at many levels in-between.  The definition and fulfillment of
these demands is essentially political, though subject to economic
constraints.  How they are defined is, IMHO, the important issue.
Ideologically based totalitarian regimes have defined them from the top: the
theoreticians and leaders know what is best.  If people do not agree, they
are simply over-ridden.  So called democratic regimes define them in a
variety of ways ranging from totalitarian imposition (without packings off
to Siberia, though many American Indians have suffered worse fates) through
yielding to public pressure.  This is not to day that democratic states are
without an ideology.  The fact that they have invested in public education,
public health and a variety of social services reflects ideology gathered
from a large variety of ideological sources, including Karl Marx and the
Bible.  It is just that ideology is not up-front and paraded as inerrant.

What is also important is how collective demands, once recognized, are
fulfilled.  I'm sure someone else on this list knows more about this than I
do, but I understand that Brazil has a variety of very positive social
statutes on its books.  By law, Brazilians are entitled to many things -
free university, free health services, justice through the courts, welfare,
etc.  When I was in Sao Paulo a couple of years ago I was told that all of
these things were supposed to exist, but could not be accessed.  For
example, free university education could be accessed mainly by students who
could afford to pay for the tutoring that was needed to write the entry
exams, and going to a public hospital would likely worsen your health rather
than improve it, if you could get in.  I suppose these kinds of things would
fall under the rubric of "subject to economic constraints."

Can one pose an ideal in terms of meeting both individual and collective
demands?  One possibility is that the ideal state would be one in which
equilibria existed among collective, individual and group demands.  Each
individual, each group, and the society as a whole would feel satisfied that
the balance between what it needed to function and continue, and what all
other interests needed, was harmonious (though I'm not sure in what precise
sense).  Perhaps there is a tendency toward such equilibria in high-income,
democratic, free-market societies, though what is going on in Seattle right
now would suggest that many people think we are a long way away from an
ideal.  And ideal balances will never be achieved as long some groups are
able to coerce others (e.g. capitalists, though organized labour is also
able to do so).

But even if you had a perfectly balanced society in the above sense, the
question you have raised (if I understand it and can extend it a little)
would still be unanswered - i.e.. what would the perfectly balanced society
be for?  Where would it hope to go?  Does it have some kind of teleological
purpose?  I find such questions perplexing to the point of thinking that
perhaps they should not be raised.  It's too much like trying to assign
purpose to the universe, which pays no attention to us anyhow.  Too much
questioning might lead to a conundrum that could freeze all action, good as
well as bad.  If we can achieve a society that even crudely balances both
individual and collective needs, that should be enough.  Like the protesters
in Seattle, I believe that we are still a long way from that.

Ed