Previous generations did not enjoy any of these. what we do. Scope is there for the future generations to take it still more further and be benefited, if they unite.

"As high-end primates, human beings in earlier eras presumably had some notion of “common good.” Parents made sacrifices for their children, and later in life, the favor was often returned. Siblings and more distant relatives cared for one another and, perhaps, for a broader group of persons."

Howard Gardner , American Democracy & the Common Good, Reestablishing the Commons for the Common Good

Previous generations did not enjoy any of these. what we do. Scope is there for the future generations to take it still more further and be benefited, if they unite.

"As high-end primates, human beings in earlier eras presumably had some notion of “common good.” Parents made sacrifices for their children, and later in life, the favor was often returned. Siblings and more distant relatives cared for one another and, perhaps, for a broader group of persons."

Howard Gardner , American Democracy & the Common Good, Reestablishing the Commons for the Common Good

Every aspect has cost. Globalization, instant information, and other fast access to resources have facilitated our life to a great extant, so, i.e. "for the greater good". This costs to our private life, family life, Children's time, social activity time, etc. so, it depends whether is a common good or a restricted good, or not at all good. It depends on how are you balancing the things?

'For the greater good' could be interpreted to mean the good of a larger community, a nation or state.  But this might not actually happen because not many countries found that globalization acted in their favor.  Then it means for the greater good of a small community that possessed power, to make them more advantaged.  Globalization has marginalized the less educated and low-skilled workers.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/globalization-developed-countries.asp

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effects-economic-globalization-developing-countries-3906.html

Dear Krishnan, Subhash, and Shaban,

I thank you for your reply's and getting this discussion underway. I think for myself Subhash has put the question into a context that is based on ones personal values. In other words how one prioritizes demands and importance on what is of value ti the individual.

@ Krashan, Your statement ends with "if they unite" and that was my thinking when asking the questing. By uniting globally the common good becomes global. The very concept of a "common good" may become global and that is my hope.

@ Subhash, Your statement has brought some clarity to my thoughts I thank you.

@ Shaban. I agree that globalization does indeed bring new products and services to many new markets and I really do not know if that is a good or bad thing and I am hoping its the former.

I am grateful,

Douglas 

Dear Miranda,

I agree there has, is, and going to be global marginalizing of many peoples and it is simply an injustice. I was thinking more on the lines that by redefining rethinking what we think of as a common good is one way in overcoming nationalism thereby creating a global "common good"

I am indebted,

Douglas

Dear Brenda, 

I am in full agreement with you when your write, "The idea of for the common good is always going to marginalize or endanger someone". When asking the question I was thinking more in philosophical terms. The use of the term "common good" is used in social, ethical, and political philosophy and in some cases used as the philosophical bases for government. To begin to think about what a" just global society" would look, feel, and be what? What would be the underlying philosophical tradition be a version of Utilitarianism? It was in this sense the question was asking.

Brenda I thank you very much,

Douglas 

Dear Douglas

I think Virtue approach.

Regards

Carmen

Dear Carmen,

I would agree to creating a "common good" global society having as its theoretical corner stone the philosophy of virtue.

Once again from your words come new understanding

Douglas 

"The Common Good" is referred to now as is a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community.

ON OUR REGION

We, as a member of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) see the integration of our economies, security, science and technology and educational structure as the "BEST" option towards creating a community wherein each member country benefits from the set forth integration.

ON  MY PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY...

"Common Good" for what "I" believe is ALTRUISTIC wherein one practices unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.  Making sacrifices for the "Good" of others... (being a boy scout and catholic)...

http://www.asean.org/asean/about-asean/history/item/the-future-of-asean

Speaking from a socio-ecological perspective  - the term "the greater good" resonates with the concept of sacrificing now for future generations, for a reward that we will not personally benefit from, other than for our children's children to know what is the right thing to do. The concept of "greater" has changed its scale to include intergenerational time scales and ethical commitments that underpin all of life - not just human. The concept of "good" is inescapably conditioned by the Age of Anthropocene and the very new moral questions and problems that the dominance of human self interest has created for all life.

Being socially responsible with respect to the natural environment includes reducing global warming, reducing acid rain, adding to sustainability such as recycling, or any other business activity that is done differently because of the impact on the local or global environment. The area of general social welfare is a broad area for social responsibility that greatly depends on the perception of the participants as to what are acceptable social standards. This includes but is not limited to increasing nutrition and educational opportunities for those in underprivileged areas. Other ways to impact general social welfare could include basic human rights such as the right to vote and/or be treated with respect.

http://ncbsr.org/

Dear Jayvee, Susan, and Krishnan,

Thank you all for the contribution!

@ Jayvee, I am in agreement with as you say "altruistic". It is often said the world is split into (more) developed and developing countries but there is a question in this division of nations. How can a nation be concidered as more developed than another when, as Susan states, "new moral questions and problems that the dominance of human self interest has created for all life" ?

@ Susuan, Your last sentence say's it all!!

@ Krishnan, As you write "The area of general social welfare is a broad area for social responsibility that greatly depends on the perception of the participants as to what are acceptable social standards". This is the heart of the question as asked!!! Thank you

Thank you all for your thoughts,

Douglas

Hi everyone,

as far as I saw, most of you considered "common/greater good" already from the global perspective, although some of you mention the "community" perspective. When I speak about "community" I always reference to Bauman (e.g. 2001: Community. Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge: Polity. ISBN 0-7456-2634-3 or other works). Talking globally, I would only used the term "global village", because in community, people actually know each other.  Their "common good" is the result of their development (both as individuals and as a community) and anyone who is dissatisfied with their path can try to force a change or leave. This in global village means accepting disadvantage (as was mentioned), because there is currently only cultural underground and other marginal spaces that allow such a person to function within a group (and forcing a change is perhaps the view of Daesh, which has nothing to do with the community and much to do with the global village). Therefore, "for the greater good" changed from choosing between various community perspectives to the choice between being part of this world or being part of a marginalized group. And if the greater good is now global, doesn't it mean that we are abandoning parallel evolution of communities for a single view of development?

But, we should recognize levels of the greater good. The greater good of the whole world is dealing with global issues, I have no problem with that only there would probably be no global issues if there were communities which in their definition seek sustainability. Dealing with global issues can also be done from bottom-up (which happens) as well as from the top (Paris conference, etc.). While the latter is based on subduing everyone to follow rules, the bottom-up approach is based on forming/teaching intrinsic values and motivation. Simply, one recognizes individuality while the other does not.

Another level is the greater good of a country/society. And at the very end of the spectrum is the greater good of an individual. In the community, all levels follow the same or very similar ideation (coming from the same cultural background). In our global village, the differences are what creates the problems. Not only we are supposed to have the same global goals but we are asked to have the same country and individual goals. Despite the fact that there exist any number of ways to reach the same result - which is a part of the parallel evolution concept.

Secondly, how much do corporations influence the meaning of the greater good? Either through politics, advertisement, information technologies or simply economics? I do not want to sound like a conspirator, but can we talk about the greater good if it is profitable to someone on the other side of the planet? We do not know him/her or what will happen with this profit. Any global issue averted profits all of us, but no longer smaller issues.

Therefore, I do think there is a need to introduce a new phrase "for the global good" while using "for the greater good" in its original sense which (as Krishnan Umachandran mentioned) is an evolutionary mechanism for the survival of species and comes from small groups that are only partly dependent on each other, not one large village. "The global good" should be applicable only to global issues especially for the top-down approach. "The greater good" should be applicable to the individual's values, societal greater good and bottom-up approach since we do not want to share the same global personality, societal or other traits and characteristics.

I hope it is not too long,

Boris

Dear Boris,

I want to thank you for that you for your thoughts. I agree that a change in the phrase may be needed however I think a much deeper evaluation of what is being "globalized". is more to heart of what my thoughts were when I wrote question. 

In philosophy and in any governmental class the issue of good and services for the most is I would argue as close to a "universal" as there is in our post-(what ever the hot button word is) times. We know that there are many logical flaws under a system of governence in which the philosophy for the common good is one of the fundamental tenets of that governmental system. This is of course the problem and counting and weighing what a "good" is and what is not! Also the fact that what is common or common sense is at its foundation a set of social norms which have been either socially constructed or socially imposed on by those in power. For example how in the U.S. could we way the horrors of slavery against the gain or good by people of a lighter skin? 

As Boris rightly to my way of thinking states "global good" and only be dealt with in that context. Yet I cannot think of a way to achieve that due interconnectivity between global and local. Case in point again in the U.S. we subsidize farmers in western Texas to keep growing cotton, why? This subsidizing of those farmers in Texas has a devastating effect on the subsistence farmers in Africa because in a capitalistic system the objective of anybody is to buy low and sell high hence gaing what is called surpluse value. By in fact paying the farmers in Texas to continue to grow cotton is just wrong from any sense of fair play but also kills people because they cannot compete. Its simply a problem of scale.

I again thank you Boris and all who have contributed to this thread. I am humbled by the and deeply touched by all who have given the time to respond. 

Douglas

Yes, these aspects of globalization are characterized by a positive meaning. It is referred to as "the Earth as a" global village. "Through more and more modern communication, the global circulation of information is carried out in real time via Internet teleinformation systems.

But not all aspects of globalization have positive aspects.

In my opinion, globalization processes strengthen long-term business cycles. In this way, globalization may deepen economic crises, including the global financial and debt crisis. An example was the global financial crisis, which appeared in mid-September 2008. At that time bankruptcy was announced by one of the largest investment banks in the world. As a result of unreliable credit risk management procedures, billions of USD of financial losses have been generated. It turned out that the unwritten rule no longer works, that "big can not fall". However, it is the emergence of ever larger international corporations and financial institutions that is one of the main determinants of the processes of economic globalization that have been progressing in recent years. these processes continue. Every few years, as a result of the merger of some of the largest financial institutions through mergers and acquisitions, more and more banks are formed. On the other hand, international operating industrial corporations move their factories from country to country, looking for cheaper workforce, and international trading and service corporations set up subsidiaries and sales outlets in other countries. Capital links grow transnational and thus systemic risk grows, whose sources can be related to the progressing economic globalization.

I invite you to the discussion

I follow answers

best regards