Every subject of the Russian Empire had an official, legal place in society marked by his or her social estate, or soslovie. These sosloviia (noble, peasant, merchant, and many others) were usually inherited, and defined the rights, opportunities, and duties of those who possessed them. They were also usually associated with membership in a specific geographically defined society in a particular town or village. Moreover, although laws increasingly insisted that every subject of the empire possess a soslovie "for the common good and their own well-being," they also allowed individuals to change their soslovie by following a particular bureaucratic procedure. The process of changing soslovie brought together three sets of actors: the individuals who wished to change their opportunities or duties, or who at times had change forced upon them; local societies, which wished to control who belonged to them; and the central, imperial state, which wished above all to ensure that every one of its subjects had a place, and therefore a status. This book looks at the many ways that soslovie could affect individual lives and have meaning, then traces the legislation and administration of soslovie from the early eighteenth through to the early twentieth century. This period saw a shift from soslovie as above all a means of extracting duties or taxes, to an understanding of soslovie as instead a means of providing services and ensuring security. The book ends with an examination of the way that a change in soslovie could affect not just an individual's biography, but the future of his or her entire family. The result is a new image of soslovie as both a general and a very specific identity, and as one that had persistent meaning, for the Imperial statue, for local authorities, or for individual subjects, even through 1917.

Every subject of the Russian Empire had an official, legal place in society marked by his or her social estate, or soslovie. This book looks at the many ways that soslovie affected individual lives, and traces its legislation and administration from the early eighteenth through to the early twentieth century.

Biblical scholars and theologians search for the meaning of the common good for our time.

Alex John London defends a conception of the common good that grounds a moral imperative with two requirements. The first is to promote research that enables key social institutions to effectively, efficiently and equitably safeguard the basic interests of individuals. The second is to ensure that research is organized as a voluntary scheme of social cooperation that respects its various contributors' moral claim to be treated as free and equal. Connecting research to the goals of a just social order grounds a framework for assessing and managing research risk that reconciles these requirements and justifies key oversight practices in non-paternalistic terms. The result is a new understanding of research ethics that resolves coordination problems that threaten these goals and provides credible assurance that the requirements of this imperative are being met.--

Drawing upon David Hume's observation that, on the one hand people readily submit to authority, while on the other hand, authority depends on their opinion, Keepers of the Common Good examines the intricate interplay between opinion and submission to authority. The author proposes and develops a novel social understanding of constitutional authority and the place of the people. Analysing selected episodes of rebellion throughout history, the book traces the relationship between the people and the officials who govern. From the peasants of Gagliano who rejected the Italian state as illegitimate, to a wealth of rebellions in English history, the book builds on the social foundation earlier eloquently expressed as 'peoples precede nations'. In developing this idea, the author identifies, first, a lower register of constitutional discourse and ideas that emerge naturally within communities, and then, secondly, an upper register that gives meaning and justification to the prevailing constitutional order. By examining both registers, the book reveals their foundations, upon which an illuminating account of social relations between rulers and the ruled, officials, and the people is constructed. The book then identifies three distinct forms of rule: princely rule, people ruling themselves, and rule by representatives. After evaluating each model's explanatory power in explaining how people experience and influence the constitutional field, a fourth model of rule is proposed: the keeper's model. This model is used to explain the place and practice of the people in modern constitutional systems, broadly considered democratic. Although the book is not a study of democracy, a fresh and realistic understanding emerges from the keeper's model of the place of the people within the constitutional field.

Robert B. Reich makes a powerful case for the expansion of America’s moral imagination. Rooting his argument in common sense and everyday reality, he demonstrates that a common good constitutes the very essence of any society or nation. Societies, he says, undergo virtuous cycles that reinforce the common good as well as vicious cycles that undermine it, one of which America has been experiencing for the past five decades. This process can and must be reversed. But first we need to weigh the moral obligations of citizenship and carefully consider how we relate to honor, shame, patriotism, truth, and the meaning of leadership. Powerful, urgent, and utterly vital, this is a heartfelt missive from one of our foremost political thinkers.

This study offers a major reinterpretation of medieval political thought by examining one of its most fundamental ideas. If it was axiomatic that the goal of human society should be the common good, then this notion presented at least two conceptual alternatives. Did it embody the highest moral ideals of happiness and the life of virtue, or did it represent the more pragmatic benefits of peace and material security? Political thinkers from Thomas Aquinas to William of Ockham answered this question in various contexts. In theoretical terms, they were reacting to the rediscovery of Aristotle's Politics and Ethics, an event often seen as pivotal in the history of political thought. On a practical level, they were faced with pressing concerns over the exercise of both temporal and ecclesiastical authority - resistance to royal taxation and opposition to the jurisdiction of the pope. In establishing the connections between these different contexts, The Common Good questions the identification of Aristotle as the primary catalyst for the emergence of 'the individual' and a 'secular' theory of the state. Through a detailed exposition of scholastic political theology, it argues that the roots of any such developments should be traced, instead, to Augustine and the Bible.

The way that Americans understand their Constitution and wider legal tradition has been dominated in recent decades by two exhausted approaches: the originalism of conservatives and the “living constitutionalism” of progressives. Is it time to look for an alternative? Adrian Vermeule argues that the alternative has been there, buried in the American legal tradition, all along. He shows that US law was, from the founding, subsumed within the broad framework of the classical legal tradition, which conceives law as “a reasoned ordering to the common good.” In this view, law’s purpose is to promote the goods a flourishing political community requires: justice, peace, prosperity, and morality. He shows how this legacy has been lost, despite still being implicit within American public law, and convincingly argues for its recovery in the form of “common good constitutionalism.” This erudite and brilliantly original book is a vital intervention in America’s most significant contemporary legal debate while also being an enduring account of the true nature of law that will resonate for decades with scholars and students.

These inspiring stories of prominent reformers fighting for the Common Good help concerned readers and voters recognize which actions and proposals will substantially elevate the happiness and well-being of citizens. Philip Kotler describes how today's society is in a state of "durable disorder," with authoritarianism on the rise and democracy on the decline around the world. He highlights the role of the Common Good and offers readers a guide to fortifying democratic values and creating organizations that pursue a better vision of the world. This text is essential for: Public citizens who want to help solve their community's problems Businesses that want to contribute to the public good Government agencies aiming to improve services and innovations Nonprofit organizations dedicated to meeting public needs Kotler details tools for public action used by luminaries such as Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Rachel Carson, and Nelson Mandela, describing the advances these reformers achieved and mapping out strategies for delivering "the greatest good for the greatest number."

This classic that has been inspiring and challenging readers to a spiritual adventure for over a century now gets an updated look for a new generation.