essay justice ensures peace and prosperity

Insight and Analysis from Foreign Affairs Practitioners and Scholars

Established 1996 • Raymond F. Smith, Editor

Winning the War for Peace, Justice and Prosperity: A Vision

In 1946, military analyst Lee Yuri (李浴日) of China pointed out that this dilemma may arise from the practice of a military doctrine that is not based on saving people, but on killing people. When a war does not end in justice for all, another battle erupts soon afterward. He contended that the world needs to practice a military doctrine that seeks to save people and to provide justice to all. He named this practice a “Military for Mankind” in his book On Victories 1 .

In this essay we first elaborate on the concept of Military for Mankind, which we broaden to include government and business. The concept of fighting a War of Peace, Justice and Prosperity is described in his book. Because justice is the key accomplishment of the War, we abbreviate it as the War of Justice. Ten precepts to practice “Military, Government and Business for Mankind” and to win a War of Justice are constructed from the book On Victories . We then examine what the world has right and wrong during the last two centuries from the perspective of these precepts.

The essay concludes with a list of recommendations for the leaders of the world to consider. The implementation of these recommendations might well lead to winning the War of Justice for the people of the world and thereby to achieving peace, justice and prosperity for all.

II. Military for Mankind . Lee Yuri emphasized the importance of the concept of Military for Mankind:

“The wars fought in 20th Century have been directed more toward a military doctrine of killing people and conquering enemies. Scientific advances have further exaggerated this problem, inasmuch as nuclear weapons are able to kill people by the millions. If military actions are allowed to intensify in this direction, the world will be destroyed and mankind will vanish from this planet.

Today, we must correct this wrongful “military doctrine” and establish one that has been devised to fight wars with the goal of saving people and achieving justice and prosperity for all. This doctrine and its practice will be termed “Military for Mankind” and the war to which it will apply will be termed the War of Peace, Justice and Prosperity.

The Chinese military doctrine developed 25 centuries ago was based on saving people. This doctrine must be reestablished throughout the world.”

Because we are currently engaged in a total war, we need to broaden “Military for Mankind” to “Military, Government and Business for Mankind”. In all countries, the military is a part of the government. For some countries, the country may own most of the businesses. This broadening of the military doctrine facilitates the examination of how each of the three components helps to win the War of Justice.

Government for Mankind was a concept that Confucius examined fully. This concept was adapted by many dynasties to manage the government of China throughout history.

III. War of Peace, Justice and Prosperity . In his classic book, On Wars, Clausewitz deals with the fighting of a battle. He explicitly states that the goal in fighting a battle or a war is to be established by the leader of the government. If the leader establishes the goal as peace, justice and prosperity, his generals must practice Military for Mankind and win the War of Justice for his country. Thus, what we are doing is placing the concept of Military for Mankind into a framework that can be used to analyze wars being fought and their consequences for peace, justice and prosperity.

The War of Justice was examined by Mencius in China. At about the same time, Socrates discussed the moral concept of Good and Justice, and the meaning of justice (i.e., What is Justice?). He spoke about the “medicine of Justice”. In essence, the concept of the War of Justice has long existed in both the Western and Eastern worlds.

The world won World War II in Europe. All nations that were involved there received justice. Germany has long re-emerged as a major power of the world. Peace and prosperity were gained by many nations. Thus, it is appropriate to say that the world won the European War of Justice. On the other hand, no justice was given to many Asian countries that were invaded by the Japan Empire, even if they were allies of the US. As a result, disputes have developed in Asia. Their elevation to a trade war is imminent.

The key point in winning the War of Justice is whether the people (of allies and enemies) gain justice. This is to say that fighting the War of Justice and the actions occurring during and after the battle should respect human life and human rights. In this way, the people will have no intention or desire to fight another war. On the other hand, the War of Justice should be fought without mercy against warlords, drug lords, and terrorist leaders.   IV. Ten Precepts on Military for Mankind and War of Justice. On Victories contains these five books written by Lee Yuri:

• Analysis of Sun Zi’s Art of War
• The Essence of War Principles by Clausewitz
• Sun Yat-sen’s Principles of Revolution
• Essays on Sun Zi’s Art of War
• Essays on Military Doctrines.

He urged soldiers and commanders to study these books. For a country to be strong and to prosper, its politicians and government leaders should practice the principles stipulated in On Victories on all aspects of government and the conduct of war. Because the war is a people’s war, Lee Yuri expected the also the people to read On Victories .

Instead of expecting readers to read that book of 600,000 Chinese words, I have summarized them in the following 10 precepts for your review.

• What is necessary to win the War of Justice :

This requirement was given by Sun Zi in Chapter 1 on Planning for War and interpreted by Lee Yuri as “What is first required of us to win the war is dao 道. What is dao ? It is the good governance by the government leader and military commander. If the leader and commander practice dao , their citizens will be in complete accord with their leader. The people will follow the leader in the War of Justice with no regard to their lives, and undismayed by any danger. They will be imbued with a must win attitude, and fight for their country fearlessly in all situations.“ This precept also implies that if a government does not practice dao , the citizens will not fight for that government.

• Winning the enemy by the War of Justice .

Victory in the War of Justice requires that the people of the enemy have a new government that practices dao . If you have no plan to build this new government of dao , then you are not ready to fight the War of Justice. This strategy can also be described as subduing your enemy with justice so that he becomes your friend. If you should win the war without a battle, the rationale for this precept becomes compatible to the saying of Sun Zi that subduing your enemy without battle is of supreme excellence. The way to “subdue” your enemy is to build a government of dao to serve the enemy’s people or to convert the existing government to one that practices dao for its people. Prevailing should not be achieved by killing only.

• The forms of war :

The war can be a water cannon fight, a crusader war, a revolutionary war, a conventional war, a prolonged war, a guerrilla war, a propaganda war, a psychological war, a media war, a legal war, a nuclear war, a cold war, an ideal or absolute war, a deterrent war, a war of poverty, a trade war, a war against self-destruction or, finally, a War of Justice. Clausewitz identified this  expanded list of wars The world has suffered through or fought all of these wars, except completion of the last war. It is also appropriate to suggest that a war of poverty and a trade war can be identified as part of a War of Justice. Some of these war forms will be elaborated later. In order to win the battle of these wars, Clausewitz believed that it was important that the commander conducts a scientific analysis of the battle and that the government leader sets the objective of the battle and provides the commander with the resources and authority necessary to execute the battle. The form of the war can affect the specific objectives to be established and the time and timing to fight the war.

• The principle to win the war : This principle that was enunciated by Sun Zi is interpreted by Lee Yuri as “If you (the leader and the commander) know your situation and that of your enemy, you will not be endangered in hundred battles. If you do not know the situation of your enemy but only yours, you may win or lose with no certainty in the outcome of the war. Lastly, if you know neither, you will lose every battle.” (Knowing means that you know all aspects of the countries fighting the war: how to fight the battle, what you should and can do during the battle, what is the likely war casualty, can you definitely win the war, and how you can achieve lasting peace after battle victory has been achieved?)
• The need for people to know the Art of War :  Lee Yuri said, “Whether you are strong or weak, it all depends on the thrifty of the Art of War.” He also said, “Wars will be with us for centuries. The world of today has wars. We must promote “Military for Mankind” and educate the people in the right Art of War. The Art of War is the foundation of military might, and the war knowledge of the people, military generals and government leaders is the Great Wall of the country”.
• The essence of fighting any war : “In today’s world, if you can fight, you will persevere. If you cannot fight, you will die,” Sun Yat-sen said. The word “fight” is interpreted as “win in wars against enemy within or without”. Lee Yuri further stated that a government without dao, corrupted officers and greedy people are internal enemies that can cause a country to self-destruct or die.
• The virtues of leaders and commanders : Sun Zi said, “A leader or a commander must have these five virtues: wisdom, honesty, humanity, courage, and discipline.” Lee Yuri expanded on this with “The wisdom is the device of a good plan that ensures success. With honesty, a leader can mete out appropriate awards and penalties and make his administration, especially its financial operation, transparent. With humanity, he cares for his soldiers, his people and his enemy. With courage, he remains calm in the face of adversity and leads the fight. With discipline , he is solemn, respectful and strict in operation of the military and government.” Lee Yuri pointed out in his book, On Victories, that President Roosevelt, President Truman, General and President Eisenhower, General Marshall and General MacArthur had these leadership characteristics and were visionaries.
• The time to fight the war : This was uttered by Sun Zi and interpreted by Lee Yuri as “The visionary leader lays his plans well before sending his troop to fight. The good and kind commander makes his plans for a short battle, a quick war and a complete victory.” Sun Zi also said, “The leader does not moves his troops unless he sees an advantage to his country; does not use his troops unless there is victory; and does not send his troop to fight unless his country is in peril.” The basic principle of establishing the time to fight and win must be firmly adhered to by the leader and commander.
• The basis of winning the battle : Sun Zi said, “A skillful commander first makes his army invincible. When he discovers an enemy’s weakness, he seizes the opportunity, attacks swiftly, and spares nothing to defeat his enemy.” Sun Zi then summed up this point as “A commander who commands his troop, not only cultivates his dao, but also preserves the integrity of his military system. He will take advantage of an enemy’s weakness and ensure victory.” Earlier, Sun Zi described the military system as the organizations, rules and supports in getting the military operational. Similar logic should be applied to the leader of the government and the operation of his governmental system.
• The benefit of victory : In contrast to counting how many people you killed and how many countries you colonized, winning the War of Justice should give you peace for centuries and justice and prosperity for all. This precept emphasizes the importance of winning at all three fronts: peace, justice and prosperity. The war has not ended if we win at only one or two fronts. A corollary of this precept is to fight no war that has the potential to bankrupt yourself.

Because the fighting power of the world’s major powers is so superior, winning a battle over a lesser country is a foregone conclusion. As a result, we differentiate the doctrine for Military for Mankind and War of Justice from the conventional doctrine on military and government operation by emphasizing the following factors:

1. Justice for all people, but without mercy for warlords, drug lords, and terrorism lords. 2. Winning the hearts of the people following the battle 3. The essential for a government to practice dao , i.e., to have good governance.

V. On the World. In the last three decades, international exports increased at a rate of about 9% a year or about 12-fold. The improvement in productivity, removal of trade and investment barriers, growth of international and national markets, and innovation and development of high-tech and information systems have contributed to this dramatic increase. However, despite these successes, financial crises still develop. Many countries are fighting for resources and battling for trading advantage. People are suffering as a result of high unemployment and/or lack of food and medicine.

Will we have peace, justice and prosperity for the world in 20 years? Based on the outcome of the wars fought during the last 20 years, the answer may be negative. However, the progress in world affairs by the major powers gives us hope that we will have a yes answer.

Before elaborating more on the yes or no issue, we will examine from the perspective of Military for Mankind and War of Justice the world’s current conditions, discuss the world order, and address the root cause of wars and financial crises. After further examination of China’s situation and that of the USA and the relationship between the two countries, we have five recommendations for the world to act on.

Table 1 contains six groups of data that characterize the strengths and weaknesses of four countries. The first group is the resources that the four countries have. Their productivities are appeared as the second group. The third group is the debt owed by governments. The investment by these countries in their military operation is shown as the fourth group. The last two groups are data of the health of their people and some indices characterizing the corruption of government operations.

Table 1. Resources, productivity, debt, military expenditures, health and corruption of four countries.

* The conversion is calculated at assumed values of $100 per barrel and $4 per 1,000 cubic feet. ** The first number is years of remaining reserves based on oil reserves. The number in parenthesis is the number of years increased by the shale reserves if consumption remains at the same rate. *** The public debt of USA does not include the debt $5T owed to governmental agencies such as Social Security Trust Funds. Foreign entities own $5.72T of the $12.1T public debt; The Federal Reserve owns $1.79T, State and Local governments own $0.7T; and private entities and individuals own $3.89T. The public debt of China includes $2T that is incurred by provincial and local governments. **** www.transparency.org.

VI. New World Order. The recent signing of a chemical weapon agreement with Syria and a nuclear weapon agreement with Iran by six major powers — USA, China, Russia, Great Britain, France and Germany — certainly indicate the emergence of a new order of the world’s powerful countries. Among these six countries, USA is clearly a superpower . This is due to the Americans’good citizenship; its highly regarded functional legislatures; its exceptional legal system; the strength of America’s democratic government; the superiority of its armed forces; its No. 1 status in GDP; innovation, business practice and business size; and the abundance of its natural resources. With its present, new leadership, China’s GDP will grow rapidly, the corruption will be controlled and the country will progressively move from a developing country to a developed country. Then, China may advance to second rank among world powers.

Five of these major powers have nuclear armaments. They understand well the disastrous effect on the world of a nuclear war. The possibility of nuclear wars among the six major powers is nil.

The relationhip of Russia and China to the four other major powers is no longer like that to the Soviet Union led by Joseph Stalin or the China led by Mao Zedong. Instead, the six major powers are working together to reach an agreement with Iran for a reduction of its nuclear stockpile. Although this agreement is only the first step towards ensuring that Iran will not possess nuclear weapon, the signing of theagreement reflects a major breakthrough by the six major powers in that they are working together first to impose economic and financial sanctions on Iran and then to negotiate a compromise for all parties. Hopefully there will be no nuclear threat to Israel and the world by Iran and Iran will revise its government operation so that it will no longer be regarded as a state that sponsors terrorism.

The second good news item is that USA, Russia and Syria have worked out an agreement to free Syria of its chemical weapons. At present, all chemical weapons have been identified and ships that are capable of destroying the weapons are on their way to Syria. The destruction of all Syrian chemical weapons that were sold to that country by Western powers will relieve Israel and the world of one key security concern about Syria. On the other hand and based on the outcome of the Iraq and Afghanistan war, the approach taken by the USA to resolve the conflict between the Syrian government and its opposition forces will not succeed in building a Syrian government that can govern the Syrians well. It is not likely that USA will be fighting a Syria war, but the human suffering of Syrians caused by a Syria war is simply not acceptable. A new way to deal with the Syrian conflict must be developed jointly by the USA and Russia.

All other countries of the world will be separated into those countries that are civilized and those that are uncivilized. A civilized country works within international laws. It has demonstrations that can be regarded as peaceful. Some have high unemployment and operate with huge government deficits. These countries do not sponsor terrorism. Their legislators and government officials are elected by a majority of their citizens or by a selected group.

We will use the China throughout her Century of Humiliation as an illustration of an uncivilized country. During that period (up to 1949), internal turmoil was produced by government corruption and/or the greed of warlords. China suffered and many people died. Mentioned in his 1932 book The Japanese Prison in Shanghai War, Lee Yuri told his fellow inmates that the turmoil and corruption that were happening in China would destine China to extinction. Several countries (excluding the USA) took advantage of China’s situation to compound further the atrocities of killing or looting in China.

The uncivilized countries are usually governed by a dictator or tyrant. As a way to protect his interests within his country, the dictator may use his power and resource to export terrorism to the world. Iraq was such a state.

VII. Corruption and Greed . The root cause of most world problems is the corruption of some officials and greed of some people. Three incidents or crises will be examined to support this reasoning. The first is the financial crisis of 2008, the financial loss and human suffering of which are given in Table 2.  In contrast to the second incident — the Iraq and Afghanistan War — the financial loss of 2008 crisis was about eight times the financial cost of the War. The human suffering of the first incident is in the form of unemployment and company bankruptcies, whereas that of the second incident is given in numbers of military deaths and wounded personnel.

Table 2. Cost and Suffering of Three American Crises or Wars.

* The first number is the sum of row 4 and 5 of Table 3 on military deaths and wounded personnel. The second number does not include the deaths of terrorists and people wounded by, or getting cancer through, the Attack.

The financial crisis of 2008 resulted first from the greed of some financial executives who sought more commissions by granting mortgages to unqualified home buyers. At the same time, the home buyers hoped to be enriched by inflation and committed themselves to purchase homes that they could not afford. Meanwhile, some industries were overburdened by labor costs and became uncompetitive. Unable to survive the financial crisis, many companies declared bankruptcy and were reorganized subsequently. Fortunately, wise decisions made by the governments and people and the correction of the financial system imposed by governments enabled many banks and companies to recover. One noticeable example was the return of General Motor to its position as the leading automobile manufacturer in the United States. The description of the cause of the 2008 financial crisis certainly supports the suggestion that our government and laws could not restrain people’s greed. As a result of this failure, there were enormous financial losses and unspeakable human suffering.

The Iraq and Afghanistan war is the response of USA to the third incident which resulted from terrorists’ greed for revenge. These two wars were made under an unwise decision (i.e. USA can win easily). The estimated cost of the war is given in a report by Linda Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz. This report states, “The fresh calculation — which includes the cost of spiraling veterans’ care bills and the future interest on war loans — paints a grim picture of how America’s future at home and abroad has been mortgaged to the two conflicts entered into by George W Bush in 2001 and 2003.” The report’s stark conclusion is, “There will be no peace dividend and the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars will be costs that persist for decades.” The projection can be much grimmer if another Saddam Hussein emerges in Iraq and the Taliban retakes Afghanistan.

Corruption usually means the acceptance of bribes by government officials. From the perspective of Military for Mankind, Government and Business and War of Peace, Justice , and prosperity; corruption means these seven crimes or unjust practices:

• Taking bribes,
• Obtaining votes by unethical means to get elected (for the purpose of getting more money or power),
• Using governing power beyond the ordinary (as exemplified by the power grabbing of Mao during The Cultural Revolution),
• Wasting government funds (as in the building of a bridge to a deserted island),
• Gouging customers for profit (as in the use of patent law or monopoly position to set up unjust pricing),
• Polluting air, land and sea for more profit,
• Avoiding or evading fair taxation (as exemplified by the move of a company to a country that has no corporation tax).

With this broadened definition of corruption, two issues should be addressed. In many countries, executives are granted lavish bonuses whether or not they improve their company’s performance. In other countries, government officials who get important projects done well and at an optimum cost are not rewarded with a bonus. As a result, accepting bribes becomes a necessity for them to have a living standard that is comparable to those who receive a bonus. The second issue is for the companies to not use the loopholes in international laws and the legal protection of domestic laws to earn extraordinary profits and not pay a fair share of taxes. If the companies are conducting themselves properly in their business practices, people will have more money to invest in their country and the country will have more money to deal with the problem of overspending.

VIII. On the United States of America. “In the twentieth century, no country has influenced international relations as decisively and, at the same time, as ambivalently as the United States. No society has more firmly insisted on the inadmissibility of intervention in domestic affairs of other states, or more passionately asserted that its own values were universally applicable.“ This is a statement that was made by Kissinger in his book, Diplomacy .

How successful is the U.S. ambivalence and passion? Table 3 gives the casualties that the USA has suffered in wars since World War II. In World War II, U.S. casualties were high. If it were not for this U.S. sacrifice and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world would not be as good and peaceful as it is today.

Table. 3. American casualties in wars during the last sixty years (source: Wikipedia).

* The U.S. casualties in the Pacific Theater were about 67% of those listed.

During World War II in the Pacific Theater, the atrocities committed by the evil Japanese Empire to Asian countries were horrendous. As an example, 40 million Chinese persons were killed in that war. The reparation established by the San Francisco Peace Treaty merely required Japan to return the property that it had looted from China. Injustice was perpetrated on China by the signers of the Treaty.

The Korean War may be described as stagnant. The good news is that we have a strong South Korea that practices dao and that China is helping the world to change the behavior of North Korea. Although the U.S. retreated hastily from South Vietnam, Vietnam is changing by itself. Overall, we may say that the sacrifice of the U.S. in these two wars has been somewhat justified.

After we won the battles for Iraq and Afghanistan, we built up the world’s two most corrupt governments through the democratic model of U.S. The U.S. sacrifice did not end with a halt to the killings between the Sunnis and Shiites of Iraq. As our troops withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban is poised to overrun the current government.

Hopefully, the leaders of the U.S. can appreciate three lessons of these two wars. The first is that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan differ from Americans. What is important to us may not be important to them. When we apply our system and/or passion to them, the government that is built up may not function in the way that we expect. Second, we need to do a better job of Precept 4, i.e., knowing yourself and the enemy. We knew that we could win the battle for Iraq, but did not know that we could not establish a good Iraqi government. Knowing how to win a battle that is not a War of Justice as defined by Precept 2, is not a sufficient reason for the U.S. to send its generals, men and women into harm’s way to do an impossible job. Thirdly, USA did not select the right timing to fight the war (Precept 8). If the economic sanction were extended for a few years, Saddam Hussein might surrender and USA would win the battle without a fight.

The two world’s foremost reserve currencies are the U.S. dollar (62%) and the Euro (24%). Economist Paul Samuelson and others have maintained that the overseas demand for the dollars enables the United States to maintain persistent trade deficits without causing the value of dollar to depreciate or the flow of trade to readjust. This monetary advantage of the USA is further enhanced by the country’s superpower so that the U.S. treasury bonds become the vehicle into which foreign countries invest their export/import surplus.

The Federal Reserve has set the interest rate at an unprecedented low level to promote economy recovery from the 2008 financial crisis. Such an interest rate significantly lowers the U.S. government’s burden of paying interest on the public debt.

Samuelson stated in 2005 that, in some uncertain future period, these pressures (the continuous accumulation of trade deficits, the printing of paper money, the increase in public debt, and an increase in interest rate) would precipitate a run against the U.S. dollar with serious global financial consequences.

If the U.S. does default on its public debt, will that make the U.S. government one of poor governance (i.e., the violation of Precept 1)? However, a better question to ask is whether we should do something now to reduce the pressures or wait until bankruptcy before we reorganize the U.S. back into its status as the world’s superpower. The revamping of General Motor suggests that the U.S. and Americans will succeed in the reorganization.

The world has many conflicts. Another world financial crisis is on the horizon. One important thing for the U.S. to consider is what changes in our foreign and domestic policy we should make so that we can still be the superpower and the country that works for peace, justice and prosperity throughout the world.

IX. On China “The Chinese economy displays both unmatched dynamism and unrivaled complexity. Since the early 1980s, China has consistently had the most rapidly growing economy on earth, sustaining an average annual growth rate of 10% from 1978 through 2005.“ This is a 2006 assessment of China by Barry Naughton in his book The Chinese Economy . The China’s GDP in 2013 is expected to grow to $9.16 trillion, which is much higher than the $5.8 trillion GDP of Japan. In January of 2014 it was reported that China may already have edged out USA as the country that has the highest level of trade of all countries. Most importantly, the Chinese now know that they must depend on growth in their domestic market to ensure that the dynamic growth of their economy continues.

President Xi Jinping is the new leader of China. His China Dream is to make China rich with goodness. He also has a Military Dream, which is to make the armed forces of China strong and committed to winning the War of Justice for all people.

In China, a new leadership team is elected by party members about every 10 years. The election of leaders involves an elaborate process. The leaders so chosen are well prepared to do their jobs and each has a specific assignment.

Let us use the rise of Xi to the presidency of China to explain how the Chinese election works. First, his father was prosecuted during The Cultural Revolution. As a result, Xi was sent out to a poor county for reeducation. However, his father was released from prosecution and assumed an important role in the success of the market economy policy of Deng Xiaoping. Xi’s effective dealings with the people in that county and his hard work gained him admittance to Tsinghua University, a top ranking university in China. Before his rise to the upper echelon of the central government, he listened to the concerns of people and worked to resolve them. He worked diligently to attract foreign investment. Resources are allocated to support the growth of new foreign and domestic companies. Before he became president, he had cultivated an important leadership position in the military.

His China Dream really motivates all Chinese not only to become richer, but also to become good citizens. Even if the defense expenditures as a % of GDP remains at the current level (which is about one half of that of the USA), his Military Dream will narrow the gap in the number of weapons between USA and China. China’s success in the landing of Chang’e 3 on the moon certainly suggests that their technology or quality gap in military technology may be narrowing. If Xi can effectively resolve the problem of corruption, China will be a formidable opponent of the USA.

Let me offer six personal observations (derived from my contact with Chinese persons of various levels and my readings of Chinese news) for consideration by the readers:

• Government Control. Practically speaking, the government owns all lands and most companies in China. Because of the abolishment of agriculture tax for all farmers, they will not be considered in this observation as persons working for the government. Accordingly, we can be assured that the workforce that is employed by the government will constitute a much larger percentage of the population than that of the other major world powers. As the government gains more experience in running the market of China, foreign companies that exporting goods to China may be asked to do more than selling their products to China and taking their profits out of the country.
• Infrastructure. Everyone knows that infrastructure is being constructed in China at an unprecedented level. Its accomplishment in this regard is even more amazing as a country with the least corruption (according to the corruption index listed in Table 1) may not be able to do it at the quality and for the cost that China achieves.
• Corruption . My merchant friends regard corruption in China as rampant. On the other hand, many foreign companies thrive without bribing officials and some companies, wanting to increase sales, got convicted by China for bribery.
• Farmers around prospering cities. The farmers are taking extra job as small businessmen and earning a great deal of extra income.
• No housing bubbles in robust cities. Many people there are betting for housings. In addition, the farmers are buying houses in cities so that their children can have a better education. The two top most priorities for Chinese families in China are owning a house and getting the best education for their children.
• Education . Good and free education is available for every child. Children in remote areas are learning English and computer skills. Recognizing the moral bankruptcy subsequent to The Cultural Revolution and the rise of materialism following Modernization, schools are taking the lead to promote the teaching of Confucius, Mencius, and dao in order to give the future generations a moral anchor.
• Research and Development. This is aggressively pursued as exemplified by the success in building a high speed railway system, sending a rover Chang’e-3 to the moon and making enormous progresses in biological science and engineering.

Three critical issues require our consideration:

• The first is whether we want China to be a formidable friend of the USA.
• Second, should we do everything in our (super)power to weaken China so that she will never be our opponent?
• Third is whether USA, China, Britain, France, Germany and Russia should collaborate and become the maker of peace, justice and prosperity of the world.

Before we consider these issues, one thing that Precept 4 calls for is that we know Chinese and China. Martin Jacques said in his book, “Soon, China will rule the world”. If his “soon” means in the next 10 to 50 years, this statement is definitely not supported by the data given in Table. 1. However, he did point out that the West was ignorant of China and its culture. If the U.S. is ignorant in these aspects, can U.S. make objective assessments of and intelligent decisions on the three issues mentioned earlier?

Here is an example of how the new China conducts foreign policy and practices the for-mankind doctrine. By avoiding domestic political affairs and funding the construction of a pipeline system across Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, China wins the friendship of these countries, stabilizes their economic and political conditions, and resolves China’s energy needs. Similarly China and India have improved their relations by signing a border agreement while China and Vietnam are working to resolve their dispute concerning the South China Sea.

As China’s economy was improving, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao and the leaders before them made a significant investment to build up the educational system. The graduates are assuming important government positions. Many of them are committed to correcting past errors, such as the corruption of government officials, and leading their nation to new heights. These two Chinese leaders worked vigorously to establish a system that can eliminate corruption in government and greed in people.

With the rise of Xi to the presidency and Li Keqiang to the premiership of China, their determination to clean up the government, the threat that corruption may destabilize the Chinese government will disappear. China will have a strong and wise government to serve her citizens.

Many world events indicate that China is a major power for world peace. It is not the China of the 20th Century. China is destined to grow and be a country for mankind.

X. On Sino-American Relation . A good relationship began in 1784 as the “Empress of China” sailed to Canton, China. Washington signed a Sea Letter and sent a delegate with the hope that the Empress of China could open up a new pathway and a new market to bring new life to the newly formed USA. The Americans took gentian roots from the Appalachian Mountains and red and white wines to China. They brought back a great deal of Wuyi tea (Bohea) from Fujian and china, which generated a huge profit for the sponsors of the ship. One of the sponsors was Robert Morris, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Up to 1949, the USA was the friendliest of the “Imperialist” countries to China. During World War II, the USA provided a huge amount of supplies and materials with which China could fight the evil Japanese Empire. Many brave Americans came and risked their lives to help China fight the Sino-Japan War. Flying Tigers downed 2,600 Japanese airplanes. The Americans who lost their lives in the Pacific Theater as listed in Table 3 may have reduced Chinese casualties by tens of millions. Similarly the strong resistance of China to Japan’s invasion weakened Japanese capability to fight against MacArthur’s brazen island hopping assault. China should also be grateful to the USA and Great Britain for China being appointed as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations.

Unfortunately the ascendance of Stalin and Mao to power and the fighting of the Korean and Vietnam War degraded Sino-American relation to an adversarial relationship. The USA’s China policy became one of containment.

Fortunately, the establishment of a normal Sino-American relationship through Ping-Pong Diplomacy and trade between China and the outside world has increased rapidly. The granting of most favorable nation trade status to China by President Bill Clinton further increased trade between the USA and China.

On the other hand, the USA’s containment policy is still in effect as demonstrated by the military confrontations that have occurred in the Diaoyu Islands and the South China Sea. However, the improvement in submarines, the increased range of missiles, and the number of nuclear warheads of China make the containment policy obsolete.

The USA must have a new China policy so that confrontation will seldom be escalated into a battle with human casualties. Equally important is that the major powers should never think of a nuclear war as a means to destroy the other major powers.

The meeting of President Obama and Xi at Sunnylands, California is a good beginning. Their desire that the USA and China form a new major nation relationship is so important that the world would applaud it.

Americans do a great deal of good in the world. They also do things that are not good. Similar comments apply to the Chinese. If they do collaborate to resolve world conflicts peacefully (i.e., with minimal human casualties), then U.S.A, China and the world will have and enjoy a win-win-win situation.

XI. Recommendations. Some suggestions were made earlier for the two countries being assessed here. Five general recommendations are given below for consideration by all civilized countries:

• On Corruption and Greed : The world should work together to reduce seven forms of corruption or greedy crimes described earlier. The United Nations needs to develop a body of international laws for use in prosecuting the crimes. Countries that are unwilling to enforce the laws should be excluded from world trade. Domestic laws should be amended or rewritten to reduce crimes of corruption within and without.
• On International Collaboration : All countries — the major powers and lesser nations — should collaborate in world affairs and use trade, instead of deadly weapons, as a means to change a government to one of good governance. Human values and the suffering in each country differ. The killing of people should be the first issue to be addressed by collaborative effort. Changes to an existing government are less formidable than the formation of a new government that is free of corruption.
• On the Prevention of Financial Crisis : The culprit in this crisis is corruption, government overspending, insufficient taxation, export import deficits, and low interest rates that are unsustainable. The government and the people must make some sacrifices to ensure that there will be no financial crisis and the associated economic human suffering for decades.
• On Research : The world may run out of oil and gas in 20~30 years. We should invest in the research and technology necessary to deal with this issue. Investment needs to be made by the world on technologies that will lead to more energy, higher food production, and more practical medical technology so that energy, food and healthy people will be there to run the world when there is no longer any oil output from the ground.
• On Education : The people need to be educated on what is Military, Government and Business for Mankind, why we fight the War of Justice , how to be a good citizen in a way to assure that our government does practice dao , what sacrifices are needed to assure effective government operation, and answers to other issues raised in this article. People must learn that greed, injustice and doing things only for their own self-interests are culprits that will destabilize their government and create wars among countries.

The tasks called for by the recommendations are being done by the world. We just reword them under the perspective of Military for Mankind, the War of Justice and a broadened definition of corruption to highlight the urgency for the world to carry out the tasks.

Corruption and financial crisis can cause a country to self-destruct. The USA and China should join forces in a war against self-destruction.

1. This book, others and essays written by Lee Yuri are on the website: www.leeyuri.org . Hard copies can be obtained with a donation.

American Diplomacy is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to American Diplomacy.

This book, others and essays written by Lee Yuri are on the website: www.leeyuri.org. Hard copies can be obtained with a donation.

Request an Essay

Follow class ace for product announcements and ai tips & tricks:.

Essay on Justice

Students are often asked to write an essay on Justice in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Justice

Understanding justice.

Justice is a key principle that ensures fairness and equality. It’s about treating everyone the same, regardless of their background or status. This principle is vital in maintaining peace and harmony in society.

Forms of Justice

There are different types of justice. Social justice deals with equality and fairness in society. Criminal justice involves punishing those who break the law. Distributive justice focuses on fair allocation of resources.

Importance of Justice

Justice is important because it promotes equality, creates trust, and upholds the rule of law. Without justice, there would be chaos and inequality, leading to societal unrest.

Also check:

• Speech on Justice

250 Words Essay on Justice

Introduction.

Justice, a concept that has been the backbone of civilizations, is often seen as the balancing scale of society. It is a principle that ensures fairness, equality, and moral rightness, serving as the cornerstone of legal systems worldwide.

The Concept of Justice

Justice is not a one-dimensional concept; it is multifaceted and complex. It encompasses distributive justice, which deals with the fair allocation of resources, and retributive justice, which seeks to punish wrongdoers proportionately to their crimes. Justice, in essence, is about maintaining a balance, ensuring that everyone is treated equally and fairly, regardless of their social, economic, or cultural status.

Justice in Society

In society, justice plays a critical role in maintaining order and harmony. It serves as a deterrent to unlawful behavior, fostering a sense of security and trust among individuals. However, the concept of justice is not static; it evolves with societal changes and advancements. What is deemed just in one era or culture may not hold the same significance in another, reflecting the dynamic nature of justice.

In conclusion, justice is an indispensable component of any society. It is an evolving concept that reflects societal values and norms. As we continue to advance as a society, it is crucial that our understanding and application of justice evolve too, ensuring it remains a true embodiment of fairness and equality.

500 Words Essay on Justice

Justice is a multifaceted concept that provides the fundamental basis for a harmonious and equitable society. It is the cornerstone upon which legal systems, ethical theories, and social contracts are built. At its core, justice is about fairness, impartiality, and the equitable distribution of rights and responsibilities.

The Philosophical Perspective of Justice

From a philosophical perspective, justice has been a topic of discourse since ancient times. Plato, in his work ‘The Republic’, proposed the idea of justice as harmony, where each individual plays their part in society for the common good. In contrast, Aristotle saw justice as proportionate equality, where individuals receive benefits in proportion to their contribution.

Modern philosophers have also grappled with the concept of justice. John Rawls, for instance, proposed the theory of justice as fairness, arguing that a just society is one that the least advantaged members would choose under a veil of ignorance. Robert Nozick, on the other hand, advocated for a minimalist state, arguing for justice as entitlement, where individuals are entitled to their acquisitions, provided they were obtained fairly.

Justice in Legal Systems

In legal systems, justice is the principle that guides the creation of laws and their enforcement. It aims to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and that their rights are protected. The concept of justice in legal systems is often divided into three categories: distributive justice, retributive justice, and restorative justice.

Distributive justice concerns the fair allocation of resources within a society. It argues for societal benefits and burdens to be distributed according to relevant criteria such as need, merit, or equality. Retributive justice, on the other hand, is about punishment for wrongdoing. It advocates for penalties that are proportionate to the crime. Lastly, restorative justice focuses on healing and rehabilitation. It seeks to repair the harm caused by criminal behavior through reconciliation and reintegration of offenders into society.

Justice as a Social Virtue

As a social virtue, justice plays a crucial role in maintaining social order and harmony. It ensures that individuals are treated fairly and equitably, fostering trust and cooperation among members of society. A just society is one where individuals are not only accountable for their actions but also have an equal opportunity to participate in social, economic, and political life.

In conclusion, justice is a complex and multifaceted concept that permeates various aspects of human life. Whether from a philosophical perspective, within legal systems, or as a social virtue, justice is fundamentally about fairness, equity, and the protection of rights. It is a cornerstone of a harmonious society and a guiding principle for ethical behavior. As we strive to create a more just world, it is imperative that we continue to critically engage with the concept of justice, challenging and refining our understanding of what it truly means to be just.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Journalism
• Essay on Job Experience
• Essay on Job

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Essay on Peace

500 words essay peace.

Peace is the path we take for bringing growth and prosperity to society. If we do not have peace and harmony, achieving political strength, economic stability and cultural growth will be impossible. Moreover, before we transmit the notion of peace to others, it is vital for us to possess peace within. It is not a certain individual’s responsibility to maintain peace but everyone’s duty. Thus, an essay on peace will throw some light on the same topic.

Importance of Peace

History has been proof of the thousands of war which have taken place in all periods at different levels between nations. Thus, we learned that peace played an important role in ending these wars or even preventing some of them.

In fact, if you take a look at all religious scriptures and ceremonies, you will realize that all of them teach peace. They mostly advocate eliminating war and maintaining harmony. In other words, all of them hold out a sacred commitment to peace.

It is after the thousands of destructive wars that humans realized the importance of peace. Earth needs peace in order to survive. This applies to every angle including wars, pollution , natural disasters and more.

When peace and harmony are maintained, things will continue to run smoothly without any delay. Moreover, it can be a saviour for many who do not wish to engage in any disrupting activities or more.

In other words, while war destroys and disrupts, peace builds and strengthens as well as restores. Moreover, peace is personal which helps us achieve security and tranquillity and avoid anxiety and chaos to make our lives better.

How to Maintain Peace

There are many ways in which we can maintain peace at different levels. To begin with humankind, it is essential to maintain equality, security and justice to maintain the political order of any nation.

Further, we must promote the advancement of technology and science which will ultimately benefit all of humankind and maintain the welfare of people. In addition, introducing a global economic system will help eliminate divergence, mistrust and regional imbalance.

It is also essential to encourage ethics that promote ecological prosperity and incorporate solutions to resolve the environmental crisis. This will in turn share success and fulfil the responsibility of individuals to end historical prejudices.

Similarly, we must also adopt a mental and spiritual ideology that embodies a helpful attitude to spread harmony. We must also recognize diversity and integration for expressing emotion to enhance our friendship with everyone from different cultures.

Finally, it must be everyone’s noble mission to promote peace by expressing its contribution to the long-lasting well-being factor of everyone’s lives. Thus, we must all try our level best to maintain peace and harmony.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Peace

To sum it up, peace is essential to control the evils which damage our society. It is obvious that we will keep facing crises on many levels but we can manage them better with the help of peace. Moreover, peace is vital for humankind to survive and strive for a better future.

FAQ of Essay on Peace

Question 1: What is the importance of peace?

Answer 1: Peace is the way that helps us prevent inequity and violence. It is no less than a golden ticket to enter a new and bright future for mankind. Moreover, everyone plays an essential role in this so that everybody can get a more equal and peaceful world.

Question 2: What exactly is peace?

Answer 2: Peace is a concept of societal friendship and harmony in which there is no hostility and violence. In social terms, we use it commonly to refer to a lack of conflict, such as war. Thus, it is freedom from fear of violence between individuals or groups.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Improve your Grades

Essay on Peace and Harmony | Peace and Harmony Essay for Students and Children in English

October 21, 2024 by Prasanna

Essay on Peace and Harmony: To bring growth and prosperity in a society, the path that wiser people take is of peace and harmony. Without peace and harmony in a nation, it is impossible to achieve political strength, economic stability, or cultural growth. Before transmitting the notion of peace and harmony, among others, an individual needs to possess peace within them while their body and mind should be in balance. Even one person can transmit the notion of peace and harmony, among others, and it is everyone individual’s responsibility to maintain that peace and harmony in society. However, peace and harmony in society are disrupted with the increase in violence and chaos.

You can read more  Essay Writing  about articles, events, people, sports, technology many more.

Long and Short Essay on Peace and Harmony for Students and Kids in English

Below mentioned are Long and Short Essays on Peace and Harmony of 500-600 words and 200-300 words, respectively. The students can refer to these speeches when required and grace the occasion by their words. Read on to find more about Peace and Harmony Essay.

Long Essay on Peace and Harmony 500 Words in English

Peace and Harmony Essay is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Science and technology were supposed to make our life comfortable. In contrast, people find alternative ways to use good inventions for an immoral purpose and eventually harm the ways of other’s living with peace and harmony. As the saying goes that with immense power so comes the tremendous responsibility is not at all a lie, for the government of each nation should invest on education, healthcare, and productive means to resolve economic issues rather than initiating war or destructiveness. If destructive ways among nation are promoted, then peach and harmony will not exist, and poverty will remain to be an everlasting problem.

The root to most of our troubles is the disruption of peace and harmony between one aspect of our life to another. Earlier people knew how to live in peace and harmony with nature and other animals, but with the realization of power and greed, it was us who harmed their harmonized relation with the environment. This change in the way of living is not at all desirable because the effects of ruining the harmony and peace in the ecosystem will have to be faced by us. Hence, people must always realize that a little kindness, compassion and self-perseverance can restore the sense of humanity in one and resolve all issues regarding peace and harmony in our life.

What is ‘peace and harmony’?

Peace and harmony is the fundamental prerequisite of our life and an ideal path to follow. Many ideas contribute to the logic of peace and harmony such as dealing with disputes, staying calm and focused, resolving conflicts, adjusting, adapting, neutralization, following the ‘middle way’ principle, etc. With globalization we are not anymore divided into our concentrated area of state or nation; instead, the world has united with the unprecedented extent of bond regardless of borders and resulting into the formation of a great and happy global community. And to maintain the well being of every individual of this global community, ultimately everyone has to implement the means of peace and harmony into the way of our living.

Ideas to maintain peace and harmony

• The integral and compressive part of humankind should be peace and harmony. And to maintain peace and harmony, the following six ideas should be adapted:
• To maintain equality, security, justice, and mutual trust, a word-wide political order must be introduced that embodies all of these.
• To promote the advancement of technology and science aspects that will provide benefit to humankind by maintaining everyone’s welfare.
• A global economic system should be introduced that embodies elimination of divergence, mutual benefit, removal of regional imbalance.
• Ethics that promote ecological prosperity and incorporates solutions for resolving the environmental crisis, acts toward shared success, actively fulfils individual responsibility, and ways to end historical prejudices.
• A mental state and spiritual ideology that embodies helpful attitude, physical and mental ease, and spreading of happiness and harmony through traditional wisdom.
• The code of conduct by recognizing diversity and integration along with conduction of dialogues to express emotion and enhance friendship and brotherhood must be achieved by developing a global cultural atmosphere.
• And it is a noble mission to promote peace and harmony by expressing how it will contribute to the long-lasting wellbeing factor of our lives.

Short Essay on Peace and Harmony 200 Words in English

Peace and Harmony Essay is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Factors affecting peace and harmony: Many powerful and influential people understood the importance of peace and harmony. As the famous saying of Lao Tzu’s goes like – “If you want to establish peace in the world, there also must be peace among and in the nations. If one wants there to be peace in the nations, then there should be peace in the regions of the nation. If one wishes for peace in the cities, then there also must exist peace between neighbors. And all this begins with the peace of mind” Particular aspects disrupt peace and harmony of a system, and people must be aware of the reasons as to why one should avoid those factors. A list of some of those disruptions is:

• Gender discrimination and oppression
• Religion and caste discrimination
• Poverty and unemployment
• Toxic traits like jealousy, greed, lies and hatred
• Exploitation of resources

10 Lines on Peace and Harmony Essay in English

• Peaceful dialogues are comparatively more helpful during dispute resolving and negotiations.
• The word peace is derived from the Anglo-French term ‘pes’ which means agreement, peace, silence or reconciliation.
• Harmony is a term that is derived from an old Greek word ‘Harmonia’ meaning the joint agreement or concord.
• The US Anti-Vietnam War movement was also called the peace movement that lasted from 1964 to 1973.
• Secularism is a concept for treating all religions equally, and this practice promotes peace and harmony among us.
• Peace and harmony are hampered when people fight in the name of faith which eventually results in the spread of communalism,
• The rise in the prices of necessary commodities is called inflation, and it is one of the significant disruption causing factor in the concept of peace and harmony.
• Peace and harmony improve aspects of business and economy which also ultimately results in the elimination of unemployment.
• A peace activist in a person who chooses non-violent methods to end affairs like violent conflicts or non-democratic rule.
• Gerald Holtom is the person behind the design of the modern peace symbol.

FAQ’s on Peace and Harmony Essay

Question 1. Explain with an example, the benefit of living with peace and harmony?

Answer: An excellent example of how peace and harmony are beneficial is the existence of the ‘Harmony Culture’ which is a Chinese tradition that has lasted for over thousand years now and has also made a massive contribution in the matter of coexistence of various ethnic groups that too with peace and harmony. Eventually, from those original ethnic groups, some fusion religions and groups also came into existence.

Question 2. How can we describe the concept of ‘peace and harmony’ very concisely?

Answer: The concept of living with peace and harmony can be described very concisely as the calm and happy state of life without disturbances like conflicts and revolts.

Question 3. Who guards peace and harmony in a country?

Answer: Anyone can contribute to maintaining the peace and harmony of a system, but there are also people who are given the task by the nations’ jurisdiction to look over law and order. Those particular jobs are called civil services for the work solely focuses on maintaining peace and harmony in the society by acting against any disobedience that disrupts the proper state of life.

Question 4. Are there different types of peace?

Answer: Peace can be classified into internal or inner peace and external peace. The inner peace is the calm, sane, tranquil, and undisturbed state of our mind. And the outer peace is interrelated to inner peace because unless there is peace in the mind one cannot perform peaceful actions.

• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education

• Our Purpose
• Our history
• Common Good Thinking
• Catholic Social Thought
• Our Founder Director
• Team & Partners
• Build relationships
• Partner with us

Subscribe to our newsletter

• Leading Thinkers
• From Jenny Sinclair
• Leaving Egypt Podcast
• T4CG podcast
• Upcoming T4CG events
• Previous T4CG events
• Events Listings
• Here: Now: Us Community
• Common Good Journey
• Common Good Schools
• Common Good Leaders
• More Common Good Resources

The Key to a Truly Prosperous Society?

Here Andrew Bradstock examines attempts by New Zealand church leaders to introduce the common good into public debate. He addresses the charge that promoting the common good might be seen as favouring one (religiously-inspired) notion of ‘the good life’ over others, and, following Raymond Plant, suggests that, in a pluralist society, a more appropriate starting point for a conversation about such issues would be an exploration of ‘social justice’. This article was first published in The Victoria University of Wellington Law Review in 2013.

I Introduction

An often underrated source of commentary on law, politics, economics and ethics is that body of literature known as ‘Catholic Social Teaching’.

II Catholic Social Teaching and the Common Good

I will return briefly to subsidiarity later, but I want to focus in this essay on another core principle found in Catholic Social Teaching, that of the ‘common good’. It would be hard to exaggerate the absolutely central place this concept has within the corpus of Catholic Social Teaching: leading Catholic commentator Paul Vallely asserts, for example, that the ‘common good’ is ‘at [the] heart’ of the core principles which can be identified within the popes’ teachings since  Rerum Novarum ,[2] and another influential commentator, Clifford Longley, observes that the common good

“…is the overarching principle rather than the first in order of priority, which is to say that other principles contained within the tradition – subsidiarity, solidarity, the primacy of labour over capital, the right to organize, the preferential option for the poor – have always to be read in the light of the common good, which permeates all of them.”[3]

It is not being suggested that the concept originated with recent popes: the common good is arguably to be found in Plato, and within the Christian tradition its roots go back at least as far as John Chrysostum in the fourth century, with St Thomas Aquinas shaping it into the form in which we know it today as he synthesized the thinking of Aristotle and Augustine in the thirteenth century. It is rather that successive popes since Leo have consistently identified it as the fundamental principle upon which modern society should be grounded, the very  telos  behind all politics, law, business and corporate life. And for sound theological reasons, it might be said: for while, as we have observed, the concept is to be found in the work of the great classical philosophers as well as in the writings of the early church fathers, in Catholic – and, indeed, some other Christian – thinking it is understood as nothing less than an expression or representation of the second great commandment, to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ (Matt. 22:39). As Clifford Longley comments, ‘principles do not come any higher than that’, which is why occasionally one may find in Vatican teaching ‘striking statements that equate the common good with nothing less than God’s will on earth, for which Christians pray in the Lord’s Prayer.’[4] Perhaps this is also why the Church of England Prayer Book exhorts its users to beseech the Almighty to 

“give wisdom to all in authority; and direct this and every nation in the ways of justice and of peace; that we may honour one another, and seek the common good.”[5] 

So what exactly is ‘the common good’? As one would expect with a concept which has evolved over many centuries, multiple definitions of it may be found: yet it is possible to identify a shared understanding of the term which can inform and stimulate contemporary debate.

At a very basic level we could say that the common good rests on the principle that ‘there exist some shared or public values which transcend the rights of individuals’. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical  Gaudium et spes , issued at the end of the Second Vatican Council in December 1965, describes the common good as

“the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily… The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around.”[6]

And in possibly the most recent attempt by the Catholic Church to inject the common good into the heat of a political campaign, the document  The Common Good and the Catholic Church’s Social Teaching  issued by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales in the run-up to the 1997 General Election in the UK, the bishops observe that the concept implies

“that every individual, no matter how high or low, has a duty to share in promoting the welfare of the community as well as a right to benefit from that welfare.”[7]

Suggesting a close identity between the terms ‘common’ and ‘all-inclusive’, the bishops continue by affirming that

“the common good cannot exclude or exempt any section of the population. If any section of the population is in fact excluded from participation in the life of the community, even at a minimal level, then that is a contradiction of the concept of the common good and calls for rectification.”[8]

Another helpful summary appears in the even more recent  Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church ,published by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in 2004, section 164 of which states that

III A Challenge to Individual Freedom?

We shall return to the various criticisms of the common good in due course, but let us now specifically relate our discussion to our context here in New Zealand. Does the concept of ‘the common good’ have anything to say to us, and if so, what?

IV New Zealand Society Examined

In the first of their two ‘social justice’ statements issued in 1993, the  Statement of Intent  published in January, New Zealand church leaders argued forcefully that pursuit of the ‘common good’ should play a part in the formulation of our country’s public policy.[19] Expressing their concern that economic and social policy changes implemented in recent years were having a negative impact on the poor in society, the church leaders noted their ‘deep concern’ that the pain generated by the need to find solutions to our economic problems was not being shared fairly. ‘People are being marginalised and live in despair and anger, with no hope for their future’, the church leaders wrote, and they suggested in response five principles which they wanted to see guiding the formulation of public policy, including ‘the imperative of pursuing the common good.’[20] In their longer  Social Justice Statement  issued six months later the church leaders again outlined the principles they wished to see informing social policy, including ‘to live in solidarity with others, aware of our interdependence’ and ‘to seek the wellbeing of all’. [21] ‘A just society’, the leaders wrote,

“is one in which its members and its structures serve the common good… for us, the purpose of government is to serve the common good, that is, to secure and protect the dignity of every citizen. Therefore government is to provide conditions where each is enabled to respect the rights of others, and where each can enjoy freedom and fulfilment in the economic, political and cultural life of the nation.”[22]

Among the specific principles the church leaders espoused were

“fairness in the distribution of income, wealth and power in our society; fairness in the social, economic and political structures we have created; [and] fairness in the operation of those structures so that they enable all citizens to be active and productive participants in the life of society.” [23]

No less importantly the church leaders argued that ‘a primary focus for our social justice concerns must be the special relationship which exists between Māori and all other New Zealanders’: the Treaty of Waitangi, they wrote,

establishes a covenant relationship between Māori and the Crown and was born out of a concern for just relationships within this land. Though the Treaty has frequently been disregarded by law makers, Māori people have never forgotten it… If we are to have a just society in this land the place of the Treaty and its potential to shape our future needs to be more widely acknowledged.”[24]

Twelve years after this, in the run-up to the 2005 general election, New Zealand church leaders again highlighted the value of considering the common good when discussing, as they put it, ‘the type of society we want to live in’. ‘To be robust’, the leaders argued,

‘our society must offer to everyone support and opportunity, shelter and freedom, resources and vision… A robust society is one that encourages and values the contribution of all people towards the common good’.

While undoubtedly our context today is different from that of the early 1990s, and even from that of two elections ago, I suggest that we would still have much to gain today, as individuals, local communities and a society, from a wide-ranging conversation informed by a clear understanding of the common good and the implications of embracing it. And for not dissimilar reasons to those enunciated by the church leaders: first, it would stimulate us to look critically at our society and ask questions about the purpose of our life together and what we expect from government with respect to fulfilling that purpose; and, second, it would have the potential to enhance the quality of our lives individually and collectively and enable us better to address a number of the serious challenges we face in our country today.

With respect to the first point, the most basic service that the common good can perform for a democratic community such as ours is to remind it why it elects governments and the criteria according to which it should evaluate how those governments perform. As the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace affirms in its  Compendium , echoing a point we noted New Zealand church leaders making in 1993,

‘the common good is the reason that… political authority exists… To ensure [it], the government of each country has the specific duty to harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirement of justice.’[26]

Is this a starting point for a discussion about the nature of our politics and political institutions in New Zealand – notably Parliament, but also the bodies and processes involved in policy-making and the shaping of law, including the Law Commission, Royal Commissions, Green and White Papers and so on. We have observed a number of commentators who take it as axiomatic that good government is about the promotion of the common good, but is that a consensus view among our politicians, our opinion-formers, and ourselves as citizens? And, if we did agree to accept ‘pursuit of the common good’ as the criterion for good government, how do governments here measure up to it?

It is noteworthy that the vision statements of the main political parties in New Zealand reflect what we might call common good aspirations: National, for example, pledges to seek ‘a safe, prosperous and successful New Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams’; for Labour, the natural resources of the country should be managed for the benefit of all, and ‘in any conflict of interest people are always more important than property and the state must ensure a just distribution of wealth’; for the Green Party, our economic system should enable ‘people to meet their needs from the bounty of the earth, within nature’s limits’ and ‘participation, justice and quality of life for all’ are to valued over ‘individual attainment of wealth’; and the Māori Party affirms that it ‘is for all citizens of this country’, being founded as ‘an initiative of Māori,  te kākano i ruia mai i Rangiātea , for the benefit of all citizens of this land’, with policies and practices which ‘derive from  kaupapa tuku iho  that are values that provide for the wellbeing of all…’.[29]  But is this discussion all too theoretical? Can we really agree on what ‘government in the interests of the common good’ would look like – and, even if the answer to that is ‘yes’, is such government possible in practice, in the world of  realpolitik ?

V Starting with Social Justice?

Let me return to the point about the inappropriateness, not to mention impossibility, of pursuing a shared vision of society in a pluralist society like New Zealand, since this needs to be taken seriously:[35] as the distinguished political philosopher Raymond Plant has written,

to argue that the common good can consist in a rich, deep and elaborated form of substantive agreement on values and human purposes… looks both implausible and potentially dangerous in a society marked by moral diversity in which individuals believe strongly that judgments about substantive and, indeed, ultimate values are for them to make by exercising their own judgment.[36]

Plant’s suggested way forward is an interesting one, namely a focus on the language of ‘social justice’, on a search for those ‘common needs or basic goods which people have to have in order to… pursue any conception of the good whatever it might be.’ Under this approach, ‘recovering the common good’ becomes less a search for some kind of ‘substantive common purpose’ or ‘transcendent moral order’ than, Plant would argue, identifying

‘the range of goods and services, benefits and opportunities which all citizens need to have in order to pursue their conception of the good, whatever it might turn out to be.’[37]

This approach certainly appears promising – and ‘social justice’ was, of course, the theme New Zealand church leaders adopted in their statement of 1993 – though I wonder if it is as far removed, as Plant seems to imply, from the search for an over-arching social vision, not least since the merit of ‘social justice’ will itself be highly contested in liberal economic cultures such as ours. For Hayek, as he famously argued in the 1970s, ‘social justice’ is no more than a ‘mirage’,[38] and still today the prevailing political consensus, whether explicitly or implicitly endorsed, is that it is not the responsibility of the state to tinker with the outcomes of a market system in which everyone is freely allowed the opportunity to buy and sell. If some people in a society find themselves without what might be considered the ‘essentials’ of life, then that is simply a consequence of the various transactions that take place within the market: provided none of these transactions is coerced, the market cannot be said to have produced ‘just’ or ‘unjust’ outcomes since it is ‘morally neutral’ in its operation. We may say that those at the bottom of the heap have suffered bad luck or misfortune, but not injustice, and therefore the appropriate response is individual charity, not state redistribution. Thus, Plant says, while it may seem prudent in some contexts (and we may recognize New Zealand as one such) 

“to have a minimal welfare state and transfer payments to meet the needs of these unfortunates, then this implies a minimum safety-net for welfare to prevent destitution, not a welfare state the aim of which is to rectify inequality in the name of a more just distribution of resources and opportunities.”[39]

The notion that even a minimal shared understanding of ‘social justice’ may be attainable also runs up against the philosophically liberal view, articulated perhaps most cogently by John Rawls. For Rawls, it is of the nature of liberal democratic societies that their members do not espouse one normative concept of ‘the good’, only that they provide adequate procedures to enable each to choose from a range of ‘goods’ and debate their relative value. The important thing for Rawls is that the conditions exist under which a liberal society may properly function: justice may be said to obtain when citizens are free rationally to identify and choose the social goals that are most fitting to them. To move beyond such a ‘neutral’ view of justice, to ‘fall on the side of the one reasonable and rational good’ as leading Christian thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas are prone to do, is to threaten individual freedom. As Michael Sandel summarises Rawls’ concern,

“A constitution that tries to cultivate good character or to affirm a particular conception of the good life risks imposing on some the values of others. It fails to respect persons as free and independent selves, capable of choosing their ends for themselves.”[40]

We are back with the concern identified earlier, that talk of the common good may serve as a Trojan horse to conceal attempts by religious or other actors to impose one particular notion of ‘the good society’ on society at large – notwithstanding that the common good should be understood less as an ‘end’ in itself than a process involving dialogue and search for consensus. Sandel himself also takes issue with the Rawlsian notion of individualism, arguing that an individual’s deliberation about their own ‘good’ must also involve reflection on the good of the community to which he or she is bound. Hence, aspiring to remain neutral regarding the values upon which a society is grounded, or the ends to which it should be directed, may be mistaken – indeed, ‘it may not be possible, or even desirable, to deliberate about justice without deliberating about the good life.’[41] For Sandel, achieving a just society involves more than securing individual ‘freedom of choice’: we have also ‘to reason together about the meaning of the good life, and to create a public culture hospitable to the disagreements that will inevitably arise.’[42] Writing from a Catholic perspective, John Finnis is another who wants to go beyond Rawls in arguing that the pursuit of the common good and justice requires more than the establishment of certain procedural rules which ensure individual liberty or fair play. For Finnis the community needs to operate together

‘to secure the whole ensemble of material and other conditions, including forms of collaboration, that tend to favour, facilitate and foster the realization by each individual of his or her personal development.’[43]

The challenge, of course, is to move from the abstract to the concrete, to particularize notions of justice within our own liberal democratic and increasingly pluralist context. Doing so will necessarily involve asking questions which will be fundamental and, as such, problematic, yet this does not remove the imperative to begin to ask them and reflect critically on our society, its values and its nature. Could the debate here in New Zealand begin with a basic question about the merit and meaning of ‘social justice’, asking whether, as a society, we agree that we have a responsibility toward those among us who lack the means to ‘pursue their conception of the good’ and expect our government to work to ensure that that lack is remedied; or whether we consider that, both in principle and practice, pursuing ‘social justice’ is wrong, and that, so long as individuals are free to pursue their own lifestyle and subjective preferences, government has no responsibility other than to ensure that that freedom is maintained. The default position in New Zealand today is toward minimal government interference, but how deep does support for that position lie? Can we meaningfully speak of individual freedom to pursue an individual goal without reference to individual  capacity  so to do? Is there general assent to the view that ‘society’ has no responsibility toward those who have suffered misfortune at the hands of the market, only to those deemed victims of an ‘intentionally harmful action’? How widely are Māori perspectives on the relationship between ‘individual’ and ‘community’ understood, the sense that each has ‘obligations to the wider collective’ or that ‘personal wellbeing depends, both immediately and ultimately, on the wellbeing of the community as a whole’?[44] Recovering the concept of the common good would at least help us to focus on such questions, and I want to return to them, and their implications, briefly towards the end of this article.

VI The Need for ‘Confessional Candour’

This is an important point with respect to public conversation here in New Zealand, where we still feel happier keeping talk about values and beliefs, particularly if grounded in religious convictions, out of our public life. There are a number of reasons for this which we need not explore now, [46]  but while Māori may be less inhibited about using religious language in public – we think of the frequency with which  karakia  are offered, for example, and our ready understanding of concepts such as  tapu  and  noa  – among Pākehā there would appear to be shared conviction that, regardless of its popularity or otherwise at a given time, ‘religion’ is principally for the  private  not  public  domain’[47] and, when speaking publicly, individuals or organisations should refrain from parading too openly any religious convictions they may have.

In so doing, I believe we buy into a particular understanding of ‘secularism’ – which we might call ‘exclusivist’ or ‘programmatic’ – which holds that either religious voices should abstain completely from engaging in debate around serious issues in the public square, or, if they do so engage, should employ language, principles and reasoning which are intelligible to any reasonable person and based on public canons of validity.[48] Premised on the view that democracy and religion are essentially incompatible, this position reflects the same set of assumptions we identified earlier, namely that whenever religious conceptions of ‘the good’ are introduced into the public square, the intent must be to want to privilege them over competing visions. While such fears are hardly groundless – religious voices have not exactly been noted for their lack of stridency and willingness to compromise, historically or in modern times – in a post-Christendom context such voices have recognized more readily their more marginal public status, while also asserting the value their contribution can make to public discourse. Indeed, in recent years opinion among intellectuals, of both a religious and non-religious persuasion, has shifted significantly towards a more ‘inclusivist’ or ‘procedural’ model of secularism, according to which all forms of reasoning should be treated with equal respect in the public square and the genuine moral differences people hold recognized. As Yale law professor Stephen Carter argues,

“what is needed is not a requirement that the religiously devout choose a form of dialogue that liberalism accepts, but that liberalism develops a politics that accepts whatever form of dialogue a member of the public offers.”[49]  As Jonathan Chaplin has put it, reflecting a position not dissimilar to Sandel’s,  “all of us, whether religiously or secularly motivated, need to reckon with, and indeed encourage, the practice of what might be termed ‘confessional candour’ in political debate. In a culture characterised by clashing religious and secular world views, democratic debate will be stifled and left impoverished if we discourage the articulation of the deeper convictions leading people to take the conflicting policy stances they do.”[50]

‘This is potentially a noisier and untidier situation than one where everyone agrees what will and will not “count” as an intervention in public debate’, writes Rowan Williams, ‘but at least it does not seek to conceal or deny difference’.[51] I shall return to this theme later when considering how ‘conversion’ to the idea of the common good might be approached.

VII Enhancing our Quality of Life

A second reason why embracing the common good would have benefits for us here in New Zealand is that it would enhance the quality of our life as individuals and as a community. In arguing this we must exercise due caution since, as we have noted, the common good is not an end in itself (a point made explicit in Catholic Social Teaching)[52] and more a political ‘orientation’ than a political programme; nevertheless, it is important to suggest in what sense it may have practical application, if only to avoid falling foul of Tawney’s discomforting assertion that ‘to state a principle without its application is irresponsible and unintelligible’![53] I want to suggest that recovering the common good may serve to challenge our culture in two important respects: politically and economically.

(a) Changing our Politics?

In a helpful short essay on rethinking the common good, British commentator Pat Logan identifies what he calls the ‘conceptual’ and ‘experiential’ approaches to the concept and sets out some helpful clues as to how the latter might be approached. Drawing upon the work of the Jesuit thinker, Patrick Riordan, Logan suggests that the sort of thinking the common good promotes, with a focus on ‘the experience of active commonality, of sharing… provides an essential frame of reference if we hope to tackle the urgent problems of our day’ – from criminal justice to corporate governance to the elimination of poverty and so on. ‘A notion of the common good’, Logan writes,

“gives us a language which can take us beyond the notion of politics as simple  bargaining , where one group’s rights and interests are played off against another’s, to mature political  argument , where communication and a common search for good can be pursued.”[54]  Logan also responds to the objection that common good language marginalizes the role of rights, arguing that in fact it provides  ‘a framework within which the shape, content and limits of rights and responsibilities can be worked out as well as a way of proceeding when rights conflict, as they often do.’[55]

Though, like Logan, he writes in a UK context, O’Donovan’s comments would appear to resonate here in New Zealand, particularly his implied call for more bi-partisanship in politics. To what extent, one wonders, would the level of debate around some of our most serious challenges – alcohol abuse, criminal recidivism, child poverty and so on – be raised, and more attention paid to evidence and expert opinion, were they to be taken out of the party arena and a more consensual approach toward tackling them adopted? How often is policy-making in these areas undertaken with an eye to courting popular opinion rather than on the basis of evidence and expert opinion potentially less in tune with the ‘popular mind’ but oriented toward more lasting and workable solutions? It is true that the introduction of a ‘mixed-member proportional’ (MMP) voting system in New Zealand in the 1990s – under which no party has yet achieved a clear majority of seats in the House – has made law-making a more consensual process than under the ‘first past the post’ alternative, but it has not eliminated the desirability of courting voters by promulgating ‘populist’ policies.

We noted earlier Michael Sandel’s appeal for a renewing of political discourse, in his case towards what he calls ‘a politics of moral engagement’. While Sandel argues a different line from both O’Donovan and Logan, he also bemoans the impoverished nature of much contemporary public discussion and is attentive to the need for such discourse to address, with due seriousness, ‘hard moral questions’. In order for this to happen, however, he suggests that a re-orientation among citizens is necessary, away from a focus on purely individual concerns toward the importance of building a common life together. ‘If a just society requires a strong sense of community’, Sandel writes,

“it must find a way to cultivate in citizens a concern for the whole, a dedication to the common good. It can’t be indifferent to the attitudes and dispositions, the ‘habits of the heart’, that citizens bring to public life. It must find a way to lean against purely privatized notions of the good life, and cultivate civic virtue.”[57]

O’Donovan, too, notes that what inspires people to political action is less a concern about wider social issues than defence of their private or sectional interests, and he is pessimistic about the possibility, under present political arrangements, ‘of achieving any public concern for the common good at all’.[58] The Chief Rabbi in the United Kingdom, Jonathan Sacks, also notes how contemporary life is characterised by, among other things,

‘the fragmentation of culture… the loss of a sense of continuity with the past and a culture of the individual with no larger loyalties than personal choice and provisional contracts.’[59]

What Sandel, O’Donovan and others appear to be arguing is the need for a serious change of mindset across society if the common good is to gain any traction. They almost tempt us to use the language of ‘conversion’ when considering how a collective shift from a focus on individual concerns to the common interest might be achieved, and interestingly Clifford Longley does speak of the involvement of the conscience in embracing the common good and the need to be ‘converted’ to it, of that ‘moment of  metanoia  when the truth really strikes home that ‘we are all responsible for all’.[60] What this  metanoia  involves, as Pope John Paul II implied in his 1987 encyclical  Sollicitudo rei socialis , is a shift, when confronting social issues, from harbouring feelings of pity or a concern to make a practical response, to a recognition of our ‘solidarity’ and ‘interdependence’ one with another. The response to social problems, says John Paul, should not be ‘a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress’ at others’ misfortunes but rather

‘a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say, to the good of all and of each individual because we are all really responsible for all.’[61]

(b) The Operation of the Market

The subtitle of this paper raises the question whether the common good is ‘the key to a truly prosperous society’, and as we have already noted, adopting the rhetoric of the common good will certainly lead us to ask searching questions about the operation of markets and how far they serve to build up our common life. In its 1996 statement to which we have referred, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales noted how ‘market forces, when properly regulated in the name of the common good, can be an efficient mechanism for matching resources to needs in a developed society’. No other system, the bishops maintained, ‘has so far shown itself superior in encouraging wealth creation and hence in advancing the prosperity of the community, and enabling poverty and hardship to be more generously relieved.’ Yet when the economy itself becomes the end rather than the means, when the distinction between the market as a ‘technical economic method’ and ‘a total ideology or worldview’ is blurred, individual rather than common interest may prevail. As the bishops put it,

“an economic creed that insists the greater good of society is best served by each individual pursuing his or her own self-interest is likely to find itself encouraging individual selfishness, for the sake of the economy… A wealthy society, if it is a greedy society, is not a good society.”[69]

Other commentators on the common good reflect the bishops’ concerns regarding the potential of free market economic theory to claim more for itself than is warranted: for Nick Townsend,

“business activity should never be subjected to an  overriding  imperative of maximizing profit. Rather, it can and should be a hard-headed form of love of neighbour, in which the  end  is to supply goods and services – things that are good for and of service to people – and the wholly necessary  means  is making a profit.”

Here we might pick up the suggestion raised earlier about ‘social justice’ as a possible starting point for a conversation about the common good in New Zealand. We noted that the minimum demand of a social justice agenda is that all citizens have the basic goods, services, benefits and opportunities they need in order to pursue their conception of the good – and this brings us explicitly to confront this very question of the ‘means’ and ‘ends’ of market activity. Do we have a concept of ‘justice’ which demands that no one should be excluded from having a stake in society, including those most marginalized from society regardless of how they came into that situation – and which leads us to want to argue that the market should be open to that degree of manipulation necessary in order for it to meet that end; or do we consider the goal of the market simply to be its freedom to operate in a wholly unfettered manner, and view its outcomes not as matters of justice or injustice but the necessary consequences of a morally neutral process?

The assumption under which we appear to operate at present is that the duty of government is primarily to create and sustain the conditions under which we, as citizens, are free to produce and consume as we wish: our notion of the ‘good society’, albeit that it may be implicit, is one in which maximum individual freedom is guaranteed, such that government, taking note of the demands we citizens express, enables those demands to be satisfied with minimal interference. Recovering the common good brings into view another vision of society, one in which citizens also take into account those shared moral obligations which make up the bonds of community and which government must also protect. In response, the liberal economist might argue that his or her understanding of the common good is not at odds with the definitions we have been employing, that the unfettered operation of the market is precisely the way to enable ‘people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily’ – yet we still have to address the question of whether we can meaningfully talk about people having the ‘freedom’ to pursue their ‘conception of the good’ if they lack the basic necessities in order to be able to do it. As Raymond Plant has powerfully argued,

“if the state is seen as a guarantor of freedom for individuals, then it would be part of the responsibility of the state to secure to individuals the resources and opportunities they need to be  able  to do what they are  free  to do[74]– which might include health, education and a degree of financial security.

For Michael Sandel the growing gap between rich and poor is a further theme which ‘a new politics of the common good’ should address, undermining as it does the ‘solidarity that democratic citizenship requires’. The highly influential research by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, notably that contained in their 2009 book  The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better, [75]explores in considerable detail the adverse social outcomes for societies characterised by a high degree of inequality, and Sandel also notes the social effects of deepening inequality. These, he contends are both fiscal and civic: ‘fiscal’ in the sense that, as the rich live ever more separate lives from the rest of society, withdrawing from public places and services, so the quality of those public services deteriorates as those who no longer use them become unwilling to support them through their taxes; and ‘civic’ in the sense that what were once public spaces cease to be places where citizens from different walks of life encounter one another. ‘The hollowing out of the public realm’, Sandel concludes, ‘makes it difficult to cultivate the solidarity and sense of community on which democratic community depends.’ But there may be a solution, Sandel suggests, and it goes deeper than a mere redistribution of resources in the hope of narrowing inequality. ‘A politics of the common good’, Sandel suggests,

‘would take as one of its primary goals the reconstruction of the infrastructure of civic life. Rather than focus on redistribution for the sake of broadening access to private consumption, it would tax the affluent to rebuild public institutions and services so that rich and poor would alike want to take advantage of them.’[76]

VIII The Role of Government

The kind of economic reforms called for by Sandel and other promoters of the common reform raises the question of the role of government in promoting the common good. Clearly government would have a role were there to be a serious drive here to reduce inequality, but common good teaching challenges more broadly the notion that, to use Catholic Social Teaching terminology, ‘the right ordering of economic life’ can ‘be left to a free competition of forces.’[77] Indeed, Catholic Social Teaching is quite explicit in maintaining that, while all members of society have a role, according to their capacity, in attaining and developing the common good, ‘the State’ has the  responsibility  for attaining it ‘since the common good is the reason that the political authority exists.’[78] Here Catholic teaching poses a further challenge to current orthodoxy regarding the free market and the assumption that, left to its own operations, it can meet the needs and wants of individuals and society. Addressing the question whether, after the collapse of Communism in 1989, capitalism should now be the goal of countries seeking to rebuild their economy and society, John Paul II wrote that

‘if by capitalism is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.'[79]

The New Zealand church leaders expressed similar concerns in their 1993 Social Justice Statement, arguing that, while a ‘totalitarian approach’ by government is clearly to be avoided, so is ‘the “free market” approach which places human well-being at the mercy of economic forces alone’.[80] While underlining the point that working for the common good is ‘everybody’s concern’ and not just government’s, the leaders were explicit in affirming that

‘government intervention is wholly justified when it helps other social groups contribute to the common good by directing, urging, restraining and regulating political and economic activity as circumstances require and necessity demands.'[81]

So what about today? Does a ‘common good’ perspective on the market raise pertinent and challenging questions for us here in the New Zealand of the twenty-first century? Does it ask whether, in the face of a demand for more affordable housing, or the rebuild of a city after a disaster, ‘leaving it to the invisible hand of the market’ will always produce the required outcome? Does it ask whether, when confronted by a choice between the most economically efficient option – say, the sale of a business to an overseas company – and that which would better serve the wider needs of a community – by, say, keeping jobs within the country – our default consideration should always be the economic? Does it challenge us to reflect whether the marketization of all services always and necessarily leads to better outcomes for all, or whether some should still remain ‘services’, paid for from the public purse? Does it ask, in other words, that government take an active role, on our behalf, in seeking to ensure that the market works for specific ends which we agree are socially desirable? And what about the ‘common good’ in a wider sense: does it challenge us to think afresh about our responsibility to those beyond our immediate community, including those not yet born, in the light of what we know about climate change and the imperative to adopt more sustainable lifestyles and business practices? Again, it is not necessary to be prescriptive here, simply to remind ourselves that the common good acts more as an ‘orientation’ than a ‘programme’, and that recovering it invites an individual and collective  metanoia  toward concern for the other. 

All of which is not to say that the common good envisages any return of big government – indeed, as we have noted, its advocates are at pains to stress the responsibility of  all  members of society to promote and work for the common good, not simply politicians and government officials. Often spoken of in the same breath as the common good is the concept of ‘subsidiarity’, another core feature of Catholic Social Teaching, which specifically rejects the notion that governments should look to arrogate power to themselves: indeed, stressing the importance of community initiative, mutual co-operation and de-centralization, subsidiarity asks of the state that it only undertake those activities which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently.[82] As the church leaders put it in 1993, describing the ideal relationship between government and local communities in the search for the common good: ‘as much freedom as possible, as much intervention as necessary’.[83] It is also vital not to see either subsidiarity or the common good in isolation but as complementing each other: thus for example, while subsidiarity requires schools, hospitals and the police to be administered as low-down the chain of decision-making as possible, it does not require such services to be privatized. Indeed, as Clifford Longley has put it,

‘to insist on the withdrawal of “the state” from health, education or welfare provision, as some of the more extreme proponents of subsidiarity advocate, is not a true application of the principle because it could easily undermine, rather than promote, the common good.’[84]

IX Conclusion

How far it will be possible to spark a serious and wide-ranging conversation around this theme, to test our appetite to re-think our values and direction as a society and cultivate the ‘civic virtue’ of which Michael Sandel speaks, I do not know: as we have observed, the common good is primarily a ‘moral concept’ which will require both an individual and collective  metanoia  if it is to be embraced, and in that sense any debate that does emerge will need to engage, among other things, with the rich resources which theology can offer and which I hope we have fleetingly glimpsed in this discussion. But that it is a vital conversation to have I am in no doubt, believing passionately, with the Catholic catechism, that

‘a society that wishes and intends to remain at the service of the human being at every level is a society that has the common good – the good of all people and of the whole person – as its primary goal.'[88]

© Andrew Bradstock

Professor Andrew Bradstock  is author of several books on the relationship between religion and politics and has held teaching and research posts at the universities of Cambridge, Otago, Southampton and Winchester. He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and is Professor Emeritus at the University of Winchester .