Sir, - It might be true to say that the concept of the "common good" is more useful in constitutional terms than that of "Natural Law" (Joe Foyle, letters, January 23rd); but as either term can be flexibly interpreted, they cannot be used to replace evolved humanistic law.
A "common" good to be so termed, for instance, must be endorsed as a value by all minorities and citizens. it ceases to be held in "common" if it is defined as a "good" by one section of society (a majority) and imposed on others, as it thus violates the integrity of individual citizens.
Indeed the protection of that integrity probably marks the limits of any constitutional implications for that term. It is, of course, a term with moral implications of ancient pedigree. The Confucian formulation of 600 BC "Do not do unto other as you would not have them do unto you" is the basic ethical foundation of human morality and democracy.
I get the distinct impression, however, that those yearning for direction from either phrase are seeking to sustain a world view which has much wider implications than they are willing to spell out? Yours, etc.,
President,
Association of
Irish Humanities,
Wolfe Tone Square West,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.