Summary and Reaction: Common Good
The reading basically addressed the topic of defining what defines the “common good” and the problems that arise when trying to achieve it. According to the text, the common good is defined by, “…having the social systems, institutions, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people”. Examples that were listed are: an affordable public health care system, an effective system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just legal and political system, an unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing economic system. The problems the reading listed were: different opinions of what groups and/or systems to support due to previously silenced groups (women, minorities, etc.), different preferences of what is considered high priority for the common good, “free riders”, and individualism.
As I was reading the article, I found that I never thought about the common good and I took some of the privileges that come with public access for granted. For example, having sanitation engineers that help keep the city and environment clean was one thing I took for granted. If they weren’t there then people would have to dump their trash themselves and that would probably cause utter chaos. Clutter would be all over the streets and to think of all the disease and infections that would come from it makes me shudder. These thoughts in turn made me think of one of the problems of “free riders”.
We examples of “free rider” behavior everywhere, in some of my classrooms I see people just leave trash behind because they know that the janitorial staff will come by later to pick up after them. This very example made me agree with the article’s view that “free riders” undermine the progress made for the greater good. Those janitors have to clean up the classroom but I don’t think it’s necessary for other people to add to their duties because they were too lazy to throw an empty container into the nearest trash can.
Still, I think we can remain hopeful about what the future can bring in terms of the common good. The article points out very salient problems for the idea of having a common good, but I notice that despite these problems the article doesn’t really mention the fact that there is still progress being made. Things are getting better and better for the common good in terms of what the public has access to. For example, those who are handicapped or elderly have special seats on the bus that other passengers must yield for the elderly or handicapped person’s use. Another similar example is the handicap parking space that almost all buildings are required to have. There are many more smaller examples that help the public like public restrooms, water fountains with condensers to keep the water cool and public benches around places like parks, hospitals, bus stops, and some airports.
Critical Reflection of Imelda
As I watched the film about Imelda Marcos, I noticed that during her interviews she put a lot of emphasis on helping the people; working towards helping the common good. She would say things like how she would put an emphasis on beauty and bring cultured things in order to help the common good.
The only problem with that is the people she’s supposedly helping can’t really use the things she’s providing for the people. In the video Imelda opens theaters and other complexes for fine arts, but many of the common people wouldn’t attend performances or visit these places either because of economic situations or something of that sort.
She also spoke about the people like they were important. But this to me raises the question of if she really knew what was really good for the people. She had supporters who liked how she has been helping the people, but she also had people who were against her slightly frivolous way of helping the people. I would say she is frivolous because during an attempted assassination she was attacked with a bolo knife, but during the interview in the movie she stated that she wanted to the attacker to attack her with something nicer; her suggestion was to add ribbons to the knife.
At the same time I don’t think she was totally at fault for some people being anti-Imelda because she was also married to a dictator. This may have had some effect on why she thought she was helping the people and was gaining their support because those who didn’t support the Marcos’ were at risk for being detained or worse. Therefore people were protesting her ways.
Towards the ending of the movie there was a clip of the overthrow of President Marcos by the people and his family’s exile from the Philippines. It also showed how the Marcos family fled to Hawaii and how later former president Ferdinand Marcos died. This part of the movie made me think of what it would take to have all those people take down their own leader. Obviously those people didn’t think the president or his wife Imelda were providing enough for the common good so they had to take it into their own hands. I think this can attributed to the fact that Marcos was basically being a “free rider”. He was using his power for himself and not the people. This was his mistake because the president is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. Therefore, the people had to fight back and protect themselves and the common good by doing away with the “free rider”.
No comments:
Post a Comment