“The Common Good: The United Aim of Many”

Among the many topics that are misunderstood in political science, and political philosophy, the notion of the “common good” ranks foremost.  Often, we think of the common good as being nothing more than getting “the most things for the most people.”  For example, when a person makes multiple millions of dollars, people will often say, “He should give back some of that money, for the sake of the common good.”  Whether or not such people should do this with his money, this is really an improper use of the expression the common good.

A better way to understand the common good is to think about common ends or common goals.  An example will help to explain this.  Think of a group of musicians on a stage.  If all of these people came together to practice in the same room, we wouldn’t call them a symphony.  A mass of people just playing any music whatsoever are not a symphony.  A symphony is an organized group; a mass of people is just a mass of people.  Nothing physically differs regarding the mass of people and the symphony.  They are both made up of the same “stuff,” namely a group of musicians.

However, a common good changes this mass into something that they never could be without that common good.  When these musicians come together to play the Dies Irae of Mozart, they become something that they never were as individuals.  Each member of the group uses his or her personal skill for the sake of a new, common performance.  Perhaps the tuba player loves to play loudly.  Perhaps the lead violinist loves playing quickly.  These preferences must be channeled and limited for the sake of the common enterprise of playing Mozart’s stirring piece of music.  The desires of the individual instrumentalists, whom play the music, no longer reigns supreme.

The common good unites this group.  If you were to ask the tuba player, what are you doing, he would answer, “Taking part in the symphonic playing of the Dies Irae.”  Then, if you were to ask any other musician the same question, he or she would answer in the same way.  The answer would not be, “playing the Dies Irae my way.”  If that were the answer, the musician would not be part of the symphony.  He or she would be doing something private, not something that is truly common.

How should the underlined selection be changed?

“The Common Good: The United Aim of Many”

Among the many topics that are misunderstood in political science, and political philosophy, the notion of the “common good” ranks foremost.  Often, we think of the common good as being nothing more than getting “the most things for the most people.”  For example, when a person makes multiple millions of dollars, people will often say, “He should give back some of that money, for the sake of the common good.”  Whether or not such people should do this with his money, this is really an improper use of the expression the common good.

A better way to understand the common good is to think about common ends or common goals.  An example will help to explain this.  Think of a group of musicians on a stage.  If all of these people came together to practice in the same room, we wouldn’t call them a symphony.  A mass of people just playing any music whatsoever are not a symphony.  A symphony is an organized group; a mass of people is just a mass of people.  Nothing physically differs regarding the mass of people and the symphony.  They are both made up of the same “stuff,” namely a group of musicians.

However, a common good changes this mass into something that they never could be without that common good.  When these musicians come together to play the Dies Irae of Mozart, they become something that they never were as individuals.  Each member of the group uses his or her personal skill for the sake of a new, common performance.  Perhaps the tuba player loves to play loudly.  Perhaps the lead violinist loves playing quickly.  These preferences must be channeled and limited for the sake of the common enterprise of playing Mozart’s stirring piece of music.  The desires of the individual instrumentalists, whom play the music, no longer reigns supreme.

The common good unites this group.  If you were to ask the tuba player, what are you doing, he would answer, “Taking part in the symphonic playing of the Dies Irae.”  Then, if you were to ask any other musician the same question, he or she would answer in the same way.  The answer would not be, “playing the Dies Irae my way.”  If that were the answer, the musician would not be part of the symphony.  He or she would be doing something private, not something that is truly common.

How should the underlined selection be changed?

“Democracy—Always a Good Thing?”

In the contemporary world, we tend to think that democracy is always the best form of government.  We are enchanted by the idea of self-governance for it seems to affirm the maturity of the citizens of a nation.  Instead of being ruled by benign-monarchs or the landed-aristocracy, the citizens of a democracy are people who exercise self-mastery in a fully human manner.  Well, at least this is what we tend to think of the matter.

Really, however, democracy is an ambiguous affair.  Often, we use such single terms to name two different types of social arrangements.  Such an equivocation is understandable.  Whenever all (or at least most) of the people take part in political life, it seems like we have a kind of democracy.  However, it is important to make a clearer distinction.

On the one hand, there can be a community that aims at the common good.  In such a group, the people come together to have a political community that aims to fulfill human goals that could not be done by isolated individuals.  Such a group will come together to establish educational institutions to preserve culture, regulate commerce in order to help normalize economic interactions, pass many laws that regulate our social interactions, and undertake many other affairs.  Although all of these things benefit the individuals in the given society, such a group of self-governing people do not aim merely at the private satisfaction of the people.  This kind of “democracy” works together, for common political goals.

On the other hand, there can be a community that merely aims at the private goods of the citizens.  The Greek philosopher Aristotle remarked in his text, the Politics,  that democracy was a government by the numerous poor people for the sake of those same people’s private goods.  Clearly, he was using “democracy” in this sense.  If the people of a nation only come together in order to assure their own private freedom and to receive benefits for themselves, a given society is this kind of so-called democracy.

Of course, it is difficult to say what is the state of any particular nation today.  Often, elements of each of these kinds of governance is found in a given country at a particular time.  Still, it is important to be aware that such an “equivocation” is possible.  Otherwise, we will end up saying rather foolish things like, “Democracy is always a good form of government,” or, “democracy is a horrible form of government.”

Choose the answer that best corrects the bolded and underlined portion of the passage. If the bolded and underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

“Democracy—Always a Good Thing?”

In the contemporary world, we tend to think that democracy is always the best form of government.  We are enchanted by the idea of self-governance for it seems to affirm the maturity of the citizens of a nation.  Instead of being ruled by benign-monarchs or the landed-aristocracy, the citizens of a democracy are people who exercise self-mastery in a fully human manner.  Well, at least this is what we tend to think of the matter.

Really, however, democracy is an ambiguous affair.  Often, we use such single terms to name two different types of social arrangements.  Such an equivocation is understandable.  Whenever all (or at least most) of the people take part in political life, it seems like we have a kind of democracy.  However, it is important to make a clearer distinction.

On the one hand, there can be a community that aims at the common good.  In such a group, the people come together to have a political community that aims to fulfill human goals that could not be done by isolated individuals.  Such a group will come together to establish educational institutions to preserve culture, regulate commerce in order to help normalize economic interactions, pass many laws that regulate our social interactions, and undertake many other affairs.  Although all of these things benefit the individuals in the given society, such a group of self-governing people do not aim merely at the private satisfaction of the people.  This kind of “democracy” works together, for common political goals.

On the other hand, there can be a community that merely aims at the private goods of the citizens.  The Greek philosopher Aristotle remarked in his text, the Politics,  that democracy was a government by the numerous poor people for the sake of those same people’s private goods.  Clearly, he was using “democracy” in this sense.  If the people of a nation only come together in order to assure their own private freedom and to receive benefits for themselves, a given society is this kind of so-called democracy.

Of course, it is difficult to say what is the state of any particular nation today.  Often, elements of each of these kinds of governance is found in a given country at a particular time.  Still, it is important to be aware that such an “equivocation” is possible.  Otherwise, we will end up saying rather foolish things like, “Democracy is always a good form of government,” or, “democracy is a horrible form of government.”

Choose the answer that best corrects the bolded and underlined portion of the passage. If the bolded and underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

“Democracy—Always a Good Thing?”

In the contemporary world, we tend to think that democracy is always the best form of government.  We are enchanted by the idea of self-governance for it seems to affirm the maturity of the citizens of a nation.  Instead of being ruled by benign-monarchs or the landed-aristocracy, the citizens of a democracy are people who exercise self-mastery in a fully human manner.  Well, at least this is what we tend to think of the matter.

Really, however, democracy is an ambiguous affair.  Often, we use such single terms to name two different types of social arrangements.  Such an equivocation is understandable.  Whenever all (or at least most) of the people take part in political life, it seems like we have a kind of democracy.  However, it is important to make a clearer distinction.

On the one hand, there can be a community that aims at the common good.  In such a group, the people come together to have a political community that aims to fulfill human goals that could not be done by isolated individuals.  Such a group will come together to establish educational institutions to preserve culture, regulate commerce in order to help normalize economic interactions, pass many laws that regulate our social interactions, and undertake many other affairs.  Although all of these things benefit the individuals in the given society, such a group of self-governing people do not aim merely at the private satisfaction of the people.  This kind of “democracy” works together, for common political goals.

On the other hand, there can be a community that merely aims at the private goods of the citizens.  The Greek philosopher Aristotle remarked in his text, the Politics,  that democracy was a government by the numerous poor people for the sake of those same people’s private goods.  Clearly, he was using “democracy” in this sense.  If the people of a nation only come together in order to assure their own private freedom and to receive benefits for themselves, a given society is this kind of so-called democracy.

Of course, it is difficult to say what is the state of any particular nation today.  Often, elements of each of these kinds of governance is found in a given country at a particular time.  Still, it is important to be aware that such an “equivocation” is possible.  Otherwise, we will end up saying rather foolish things like, “Democracy is always a good form of government,” or, “democracy is a horrible form of government.”

Choose the answer that best corrects the bolded and underlined portion of the passage. If the bolded and underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

"You spent all day "working" on your outfit while I shoveled the snow," Sally accused angrily.

Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

"You're going to have to pass through the forest if you want to get to the town before nightfall" said shopkeeper at the entrance to town.

“Intellectual Virtues”

Whenever someone talks about being “virtuous,” we immediately think of someone whose very moral.  Perhaps we even think of people who are a bit boring for virtuous people can appear to have no fun at least in the popular imagination.  Whatever the case might be, almost any reader would be surprised to see the expression “intellectual virtues.”  What could this expression mean to designate!  At best, most people would say, “Such virtues must describe people for who knowledge is combined with devotion and rigorous discipline.”  That is; they would seem to describe the person who has a disciplined character in addition to being intelligent.

However, in ancient and medieval philosophy, certain intellectual capacities were considered virtues.  These character traits were not quite the same as moral character traits or virtues.  To understand this idea, it can be helpul to consider two example people, one whose skills are the fruit of a so-called intellectual virtue and the other whose skills are not.

It is easier to start with the person who does not have a given intellectual virtue.  We all know someone who is not very good at math, that is, someone for who math is difficult even though he or she might be quite skilled at many other tasks   It makes sense to say that this person doesn’t have an intellectual virtue.  Likewise, think of the person who is only able to memorize formulas.  Such a person is often very good at working through many problems with deft skill.  This person seems to be a “wiz” at geometry and algebra, quickly solving equations and proofs. 

However, this latter person might suddenly be presented with a difficult, new problem.  When we notice that he or she does not have the creative skill and insight to solve the problem, we realize that he or she does’nt have a so-called “intellectual virtue.”  This person merely has a habit—a particular skill that is helpful but does not indicate true and complete mathematical knowledge.  The person who is able to understand the mathematics and creatively apply this knowledge to solve new problems.  This person has a true intellectual virtue.  They have a particular ability for intellectual insight, able to probe the difficult domain of this topic.  This is much more noble as the mere habit of being able to balance equations and repeat facts about geometric figures!

Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the passage. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

"I love running." Susan told me enthusiastically.

Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

"I have to take a sick day today, Heather told her boss.