> tg wrote:

>> On Jul 24, 2:48 pm, no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote:

>

>> Mark M:

>

>> "So a common good would be absence of disease epidemic."

>

>> Your reply was:

>

>> "Only if there was an actual impending threat of such an epidemic. "

>

>> Mark M presents a perfectly reasonable example of a common good,
>> putting aside the possibility that some doctor who was immune might
>> think he could profit from an epidemic. All the rational members of a
>> group would hold absence of disease epidemics as a 'good', *whether
>> there was a threat of one or not.* So it fits my definition of a
>> common good.

>
> The problem is that if a Typhoid Mary willingly continues to spread
> an epidemic, that's a "clear and present danger" and action
> taken to stop is is perfectly reasonable. If there are slit trenches
> full of human waste, and it is known that cholera comes from
> that, fixing that problem is simple self defense.
>
> When people use "the common good" in common usage, that's
> not what they mean. They mean "other than in self
> interest."
>

>
>
> --
> Les Cargill