{"title":"谁的利益才是公共利益?对克劳斯办公室的(迟来的)回应","authors":"Christian Blum","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.88143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper answers Claus Offe’s question about the social referent of the common good, i.e., what kinds of entities are beneficiaries of common good-related public policy. I reject two individualistic answers, according to which the reference point of the common good is the totality or majority of individual community members, respectively. Instead, I opt for a holistic answer, according to which the community qua social entity is the beneficiary of the common good.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whose Good is the Common Good Anyway? A (Late) Response to Claus Offe\",\"authors\":\"Christian Blum\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/gp.2023.88143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper answers Claus Offe’s question about the social referent of the common good, i.e., what kinds of entities are beneficiaries of common good-related public policy. I reject two individualistic answers, according to which the reference point of the common good is the totality or majority of individual community members, respectively. Instead, I opt for a holistic answer, according to which the community qua social entity is the beneficiary of the common good.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of global health perspectives\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of global health perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.88143\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of global health perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.88143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Whose Good is the Common Good Anyway? A (Late) Response to Claus Offe
This paper answers Claus Offe’s question about the social referent of the common good, i.e., what kinds of entities are beneficiaries of common good-related public policy. I reject two individualistic answers, according to which the reference point of the common good is the totality or majority of individual community members, respectively. Instead, I opt for a holistic answer, according to which the community qua social entity is the beneficiary of the common good.