A current strand of thought teaches that all collective goods are convergent goods. Its main exponents are the welfarist and utilitarian conceptions in the fields of economics and philosophy, respectively. This assumption presupposes that "social wholes" are inevitably composed of "parts", and that therefore the base of each public or social good is composed of individuals who would be ultimately responsible for its existence. Thus, public goods would be goods where the interests and choices of social actors converge. This essay shows that, first, according to Taylor's understanding, not all collective goods are convergent goods. Some social goods can be considered as irreducibly social goods, whose justification lies in reflection on their meaning. Second, it discusses the contribution that the Hegelian notion of ethics had on the formulation of this argument.
Convergent social goods; Irreducible social goods; Theory of action; Taylor; Hegel