Thoughts on this book?
Everyone should read it.
>>17280626written by a white guy so... irrelevant
Nietzschefags btfo’d by this based and tradcath and breadpilled communitarian book. The chapter on the virtue ethics of Ancient Greek and pagan cultures was cool as fuck
>>17280670Does he simply call for a return to Aristotilean ethics or propose a new ethical framework for modern society?
>>17280740He proposes a new one based on innate teleology, which he then expands on in a sequel book whose name I forget, but basically he's looking at humans as biological creatures whose biological nature supposes a certain teleology. Makes a lot of emphasis on how social we are.
>>17280754Interesting. What are his thoughts on religion? It sounds like he promotes the teleology offered by Aquinas and present during the Middle Ages
>>17280821I got the impression he was trying to unite evopsych and Aristotle more than Christianity and Aristotle a la Aquinas. I read those books years ago now though so Im pretty hazy.
>>17280845Thanks. I've barely read Kant, Hume, and other philosophers he cites so I'm afraid I'll be jumping into it too soon but definitely going to give it a chance.
>>17280754Once you get past mere biological reproduction how do you ground ethics that way without smuggling in subjective and normative values
>>17280626I used this book for my thesis. recommended
>>17282455How did you apply MacIntyre's moral framework to the modern world? It seems like he had a hard time doing so but I just started so that's based off posts I've read online.
>>17280626I am tired of making the same point over and over but MacIntyre's argument is horrendously bad and incoherent. He criticizes the Enlightenment philosophers for believing that morality could be discovered by reason, but his preferred ethical framework (Aristotelian/Thomist Virtue Ethics) presupposes that morality can be discovered by reason. What he thinks as an "Enlightenment illusion" is the position of every moral realist ever.
>>17282892Reason is culturally relative for McIntyre
>>17282892He never said morality can't be informed by reason whatsoever.The idea of telos offered by the Greeks and later religion during the Middle Ages (Aquinas and his Summa Theologica articulate it the best) allows men to use reason but fits it within a more objective framework. There is a sort of "narrative" arc they should follow. A notion of the "common good" (as he extols) doesn't exclude people from using their own reason over individual reasons, but they have a basic structure and purpose.
>>17280626Kind of blackpilling knowing that we're in a vacant dark hole of ethics where people will fight over semantics and individuality until someone creates a new ideology that kills us all. If only Nietzsche filled the void
>>17283114...but not for Aquinas
>>17283162I think eternal recurrence and Nietschean affirmation are good solutions but lack common appeal.
>>17283116>The idea of telos offered by the Greeks and later religion during the Middle Ages (Aquinas and his Summa Theologica articulate it the best) allows men to use reason but fits it within a more objective framework.The "objective framework" is derived from reason in the Aristotelian/Thomistic framework. The scientist discovers the final causes in nature. MacIntyre doesn't believe that morality can be discovered by reason, while Aristotle, Aquinas, and some Enlightenment thinkers do.
>>17283221Differnt anon here, but do Aristotle and Aquinas posit anything like a social contract, that by essence is rationalistic? I think there is a difference between claiming that morality emerges from reason and that reason reaffirms (the need of) morality.
>>17283221Reason needs to come second though. Reason can supplement morality but it first needs to be built on an objective framework. Aristotle and Aquinas operate on an objective framework, Enlightenment thinkers don't. That's the key difference. Best summary of the Thomist framework I can find online: >The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.- Pope Pius X
>>17283185It was for Aristotle
>>17283290>Differnt anon here, but do Aristotle and Aquinas posit anything like a social contract, that by essence is rationalistic?They weren't social contract theorists, but their ethics derives from identifying Final Causes in nature. There is zero skepticism about the project of discovering what is objectively right and wrong by reason.
>>17280754damn, that's exactly what i've been looking for
>>17282209Ye don'tYou just call your subjective values biological based on really flimsy evidence and call it a day, similar to the sexologists who pushed for the sexual revolution
>>17283800>There is zero skepticism about the project of discovering what is objectively right and wrong by reason.And how is this not what I said about the difference between a purely rational origin of ethics and a rational analysis and its reaffirmation of that ethics? A rationalization like this is merely interpretative of non-rational impositions that imply a human teleology - its preservation and fecundity. Rationalists derive their own order, peace and perfect ground for rationalizations as the very origin of what they rationalize.
>>17283293>Reason needs to come second though. Reason can supplement morality but it first needs to be built on an objective framework. Aristotle and Aquinas operate on an objective framework, Enlightenment thinkers don't. That's the key difference. And where do you think this "objective framework" comes from? For Aristotle, Aquinas, and the Enlightenment thinkers objective knowledge is derived from reason (In fact, reason is nothing less than the capacity of humans to think objectively). MacIntyre thinks this can't be done, yet he urges us to go back to an Aristotelian view of ethics, which is based on identifying Final Causes in nature through reason. In fact in the period he wrote after virtue he didn't even believe in Final Causes, this is how incoherent his views were.
>>17283789>Reason is culturally relative according to AristotleSurely you must be hoking
>>17283845So you think Aristotle is a moral realist?
>>17283849Of course he is a moral realist, this isn't controversial
>>17283832And how is this not what I said about the difference between a purely rational origin of ethics and a rational analysis and its reaffirmation of that ethics?Aristotle derives his ethics purely from logic. You aren't making much sense, and I suspect you are not very familiar with virtue ethics.
>>17283832>Rationalists derive their own order, peace and perfect ground for rationalizations as the very origin of what they rationalizeRationalists derive from* their own order, peace and perfect ground for rationalizations the very origin of what they rationalize.
>>17283853So virtues aren't relative to a context, but universally valid in every case? You're retarded.
>>17283888so the virtue of not killing another unjustifiedly is relative to cultural contexts?
>>17284034Justification is always culturally relative, how society views your action is always culturally relative
>>17284048A justification, yes. But not justification itself, culture will always demand it, in the case of homicide. By justification it is better to translate as interditions, laws and all other cultural components regulating it, again, every culture will demand these ''virtue ethics''.
>>17280957I was in the same exact position as you when I read After Virtue. I absolutely loved the book. I do think I missed a good bit because I didn’t come into it with a large enough background knowledge. It is certainly a book you want to fully understand so I would recommend delving into those that came before.
my brainlet take is that he's about 50-50 right and wrong, more or less like any great philosopher. good ideas: that the virtues would operate relative to a wide set of ends (chess, painting); that a lack of clear social roles causes some distress; that a human telos would be founded roughly in searching for the good; that social science is mostly about rough predictions rather than objective knowledge; that amoral therapy bad; that aesthete lyfe bad; finally that there can be multiple traditions in any domain, including morality, that fundamentally express the same spirit and are thus normative in the same way, though mutually incompatible.bad ideas: that the modern state should be overthrown and we should return to Greek city states (lmao); that no philosopher except Aristotle and Aquinas, with honorable mentions to Nietzsche and Hume, has ever had any idea what they were doing (particularly unforgivable is his shallow treatment of Rawls, Kant, Nozick, and Mill); that external goods (money, status) are categorically lower than internal goods (being good at chess or painting), and in connection, that morality is more about being good at chess than about giving to the poor; finally that everything is narrative (his entire philosophy of action is pretty weak, imo)Basically: Macintyre is the greatest of the return to xyz thinkers, and for that he is valuable. Some of his other ideas are also valuable. That said, I wouldn't read Macintyre without also reading *all* of the authors he writes about except Gewirth, and the social scientists, and Korsgaard, especially her later stuff about animals and the good. Still he's given me a lot to think about
>>17280754Dependent rational animals?
>>17283888>So virtues aren't relative to a context, but universally valid in every case? You're retarded.And how exactly is moral realism incompatible with virtues being contextual? Do you even care about discussing the topic or you just want to "win the argument", whatever that means in your demented world.
>>17284764>whatever that means in your demented worldCool rhetorical device bro, I see you’re trying to do the same (me too)
>>17285012Except I was actually discussing the topic instead of shitting up the thread
It's so bad it should be seen as a confession about the dishonesty and idiocy of christlarpers.He starts out wanting to validate Aristotelianism and bends fact into this narrow framework.>we can rank clocks by whether they do their jobNo. I have an 19th century pocketwatch handed down through the generations from my family and it's infinitely more useful than any watch that shows the time.>Nietzschefags btfo’d by this based and tradcath and breadpilled communitarian book. The chapter on the virtue ethics of Ancient Greek and pagan cultures was cool as fuckYeah this about somes up the intellectual level of this book. If you're wrong just turn up the volume.
>>17285064Then you would’ve omitted the snide remark at the end
>>17285085Also since I know what the sales pitch of this book was I'd recommend this instead. If you already think virtue ethics are good why would you subject your position to whether MacIntyre's retardation holds up? You don't need to justify yourself. You yourself validate your desire to become mpre virtuos
>>17285098But I didn't, because you deserved it. Next time if you actually contribute anything of value to the thread you can make snide remarks too.
>>17285165Do you even care about discussing the topic or you just want to "win the argument", whatever that means in your demented world.
>>17285713>whatever that means in your demented worldCool rhetorical device bro, I see you’re trying to do the same (me too)
I have a psychotic and unhealthy bias against Marxist. I know it's silly but as much as I want to read this book, I'm discouraged by his commie past.
>>17285834why bro marxism is based
>>17285834He's got a good critique of Marxism in the last chapters (or maybe it was the afterword?).>>17280626It made a deep impression on me but I think he's still Aristotelian in this one. Don't know about his later work where he became a Thomist. I think Aquinas ought to be distanced more from Aristotle.