Rating: 
Summary: Why does a dead fish weigh more?
Review: "After Virtue" discusses the problem of the contemporary failure of moral philosophy and sociology, based on a historical review of ethics philosophy. We have arrived at philosophical views that provide no recognized principles to resolve moral issues, but lead instead to interminable debate from differing premises. Three examples are (1) the possibility of a "just" war; (2) the "right" to choose abortion, and end a life, and (3) rights to equality of opportunity. These are issues debated in editorials, high school debates, talk shows, bars, barracks, and boardrooms. Opposite points of view on each are strongly supported by logically valid arguments but from differing premises, often rooted in differing relative values, like individuality versus life, justice versus survival.MacIntyre is a professor of philosophy at Notre Dame, and wrote After Virtue in 1981, a second edition in 1984, with eight reprintings through 2002. His discussion goes back to the beginnings of moral philosophy with Aristotle, 2500 years ago. From that starting point MacIntyre critiques the later philosophies of Kant, Hume, Kierkegard and many others, and argues that their refutation of Aristotle are a failure as moral framework. He assumes the reader is familiar with the nuances of all these writings, so that those of us who are not are likely to find his book a little difficult. But he demolishes Utilitarianism, Pragmatism, and especially Emotivism, so that today we are left with amoral, chaotic Relativism from Nietzsche, or individualist Authenticity from Rousseau. We are left with no moral basis to condemn anything as objectively wrong or evil, not even Nazi Germany, Communist USSR, or the KKK. MacIntyre also skewers the social sciences for their failure to develop "---law-like generalizations with strong predictive power---," while claiming that to be their goal, and presenting their findings as though that's what they are-laws with predictive power. Some examples are given that border on ludicrous. Here are two examples: "---the crime rate rises in high rise buildings with the height of the building up to thirteen floors, then levels off at heights above thirteen floors." (Newman, 1973)
"---the most and least modernized societies are the most stable and least violent---those in the midrange of modernity are most liable to instability and violence." (Feirabend, 1966) The above conclusions were based on impressive research, with many confirming examples. But they both have many recognized counter-examples. While the counter-examples are known and recognized, they do not disqualify the generalizations like they would in physics or chemistry. Only in the social sciences are such contradictions accepted! MacIntyre goes on to show why human affairs are inherently unpredictable, although social science is sold that way to make the idea of "managerial expertise" believable, especially in selling social scientists as expert advisors to both government and private corporations. MacIntyre believes it was a mistake to abandon the Aristotelian philosophical beginning during the Enlightenment, after it had supported civilization for a couple thousand years. He argues that, going back to that beginning, it would be possible to develop a rational moral framework independent of theology, that would be compelling enough to be accepted by all rational individuals. He promises to do so in a later work, but has not as far as I know. So what does a dead fish have to do with it? MacIntyre compares the situation of moral philosophy to this incident: Charles II once invited the members of the Royal Society to explain why a dead fish weighs more than the same fish alive. A number of very subtle explanations were offered until someone took the trouble to weigh a few fish, dead and alive, and discovered they weigh the same! It's a difficult book, at least for my Philosophy 101 starting point, but a very interesting commentary on our present moral morass, with a compelling argument for a return to the basics of Aristotle, and a more conservative moral philosophy.
Rating: 
Summary: MacIntyre dissects 400 years of doomed moral philosophy
Review: After Virtue is a delightful book which presents the contemporary problem of moral philosophy today. MacIntyre says that there is an interminability of moral debate today. No consensus solution to the variety of moral issues such as abortion and war will present itself because proponents of both sides of the arguments in these two issues argue from a different set of premises from a different tradition of moral philosophy. You have Thomistic ideals of the value of life and justice against Rousseauist ideals of individuality, for example, in life issues. Can any of the enlightenment moral philosophies really help us make rational, clear decisions about the morality of a particular decision? MacIntyre investigates the moral philosophies of Kant, Hume, & Kierkegard, showing how each of them miserably fail as possible moral systems. Utilitarianism, pragmatism, and emotivism are also wonderfully skewered. With what are we left? It seems as if after the failure of these systems we are left with the Nietzschean amorality of total chaotic relativism. MacIntyre understands the enigma of Nietzsche's ideas and shows how his attacks toppled the pompous, arrogant ideals of the Enlightenment. But Nietzsche's system seems impossible from a human standpoint, since, for example, we are left with the unsettling discovery that events such as the Holocaust are not really "wrong" in any objective sense. MacIntyre interjects that there is another alternative: go back to the source of the Enlightenment project. Sometime around then a bald decision was made philosophically to abandon the Neo-Aristotelian metaphysics that had supported Western thought for the previous 2000 years whether in the purest Aristotelian form or rather in highly developed Thomistic incarnations such as that which the Catholic Church held (and still does) and similar ones influences by Islamic and Jewish philosophers during the middle ages. Can this form of moral philosophy withstand criticism and ultimately rise as a viable alternative to Nietzsche? MacIntyre thinks so, and he spends a large amount of time laying the groundwork for a revived account of such a system. When he poses the question, Nietzsche or Aristotle, finally I at least think that he has made a compelling argument in favor of Aristotle (and Aquinas as some of his later work will evolve towards). Overall, I think this book is an incredible account of traditional Catholic Christian ethics and is a must for a Catholic as well as anyone else wanting to advance a conservative moral system.
Rating:
Summary: This book is a revelation
Review: After Virtue is a major philosophical achievement. MacIntyre's arguments are irresistible. The book is full of ideas that not just sound good, but are actually TRUE. The chapters dealing with the unity of the self and the concept of tradition are sheer genius. Just buy the damn thing!
Rating:
Summary: Great for philo majors or those interested in ethics...
Review: I am a philosophy major at Notre Dame, where MacIntyre still teaches one course each fall semester. (as a side note, he's an incredibly engaging lecturer in addition to being a brilliant profesor). This book is not for the casual reader. This assumes at least some understanding of Aristotelian ethics, as well as background knowledge in other philosophical traditions (such as Nietzche, exististensalism, etc). Also, the writing holds a decidedly Catholic slant--not unlike the works of Aquinas or Augustine (medieval Catholic philosophers). However, within these premises (and all philosophical writing have premises, regardless of what the author claims), the book is outstanding. MacIntyre's reputation speaks for itself, and it is certainly well deserved. Along with this book, I'd recommand Chesteron's "Orthodoxy" and Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics." Ethics will give you some background into MacIntyre's references, and Chesterton is a similiar book that provides for an intriguing and persuasive arguement for the Christian ethics/tradition over other philosophers. Ethics takes a bit of work--Aristotle's works are not the easiest things to read, but it's well worth it especially in conjection with this ook. Chesterton's book is witty, fairly easy even for a non-philo major.
Rating:
Summary: A Strong Move in the Right Direction
Review: I recommend this well-thought-out and well-written book highly. I see on the back cover that John Gardner calls it "the best book of philosophy in years." I assume this is the John Gardner--novelist, literary historian, and teacher of writing--who wrote ON MORAL FICTION. If you read chapter 2 of that fine little book by Gardner, you will get a discussion of morality that may help you, as a studious reader of AFTER VIRTUE, understand a little better what MacIntyre is saying. The moral outlook discussed by MacIntyre has been indeed the basic outlook of Christianity in its various catholic forms certainly (Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc.) as well as the outlook of Romanticism and Marxism. I intend to study MacIntyre's book a second time to clarify and refine my understanding of it. It does seem to me that his insistence on the need to beware of the morally devastating effects of "emotivism" in its various forms is an intelligent therapeutic move. An ethics founded on man's telos or on the imperative to live according to the will of God, as we are able to divine it, is an ethics, a set of criteria for conduct, that facilitates our stuggle to become authentic, creative, and healing persons, individually and collectively.
Rating:
Summary: A necessary read for anyone interested in ethics
Review: In this work Alasdair MacIntyre argues that morality as we currently understand it has suffered a great disaster. As a result of the Enlightenment project's failed attempt to justify morality on its own terms, as MacIntyre argues, we are left with nothing more than shards of a once complete and coherent moral tradition. As a result the current state of morality is a form of emotivism, according to MacIntyre. MacIntyre's argument comes to a head when, in ch. 9, he claims that we must either go the way of Nietzsche's critique of morality or opt for a reworked version of Aristotle's ethics in which our moral claims can be justified. This work is, in part, resoponsible for the renewed interest in virtue ethics among contemoporary moral philosophers. Regardless of whether one ultimately affirms or denies MacIntyre's conclusions this work is necessary reading for anyone who wishes to keep informed of current debates in moral philosophy. Along these same lines I would recommend MacIntyre's other works which include Three Rival Versions and Whose Justice? Which Rationality? as well as Bernard Williams' Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, and John Rawls' Political Liberalism.
Rating: 
Summary: Mr. MacIntyre's Opus
Review: In truth, I'm still a bit perplexed by this book. I understand what MacIntyre is trying to combat, namely Emotivism, but I'm not exactly sure what he wants to replace it with. From my reading, he seems to want some sort of blending of Christian ethics with Greek hero morality, two systems that are ultimately contrary. Perhaps that's entirely wrong and I simply was unable to follow the lines of argument he used. Of course, I did have a hard time with some of his points. He jumped around a fair amount, as well as glossed over several important points that needed more explanation. However, his work was not totally in vain as he did succeed in eradicating much of the basis for Emotivism. Still, that was only half the job, and he only completed part of the remainder of the task. So, in summary, good for arguments against Emotivism, bad for arguments for anything else.
Rating:
Summary: But doesn't Nietzsche win?
Review: It's a breathtaking book, one of the best philosophy books that I've read. In chapter 9 "Nietzsche or Aristotle?" MacIntyre tries to prove that Aristotle wins. The problem is that MacIntyre needs to reinvent a Telos (ultimate end) to replace Aristotle's biological one, and on this he writes only one paragraph that is rather vague, "the good life for man is the life spent in seeking for the good life of man, and the virtues necessary for seeking are those which enable us to understand what more than else the good life for man is. (p. 219)" This does sound quite circular, and this "good" is never clearly defined.
Sadly (I am not Nietzschean), I get the feeling that MacIntyre's challenge to topple Nietzsche doesn't completely succeed. His book then, perhaps, becomes another, extremely brilliant and contemporary (smashing utilitarianism and Kant), 'genealogy of morals.'
Rating:
Summary: a wonderful introduction
Review: The other reviewers have grabbed exactly what MacIntyre was getting at, if one combines their comments. It is certainly true that MacIntyre wishes to "skewer" the major moral philosophies of the modern day. This is absolutely necessary for his project. If he wishes to re-establish Aristotelian moral philosophy, he must first discredit those philosophies that have tried to destroy Aristotelianism. He does an excellent job, which is why After Virtue sparked so much debate. This book is a wonderful introduction to MacIntyre's thought, and is complemented by his Short History of Ethics (get the second edition). Any lover of Aristotle will be thrilled, and those who don't will be somewhat frightened and forced to re-think their positions.
Rating:
Summary: a fierce response to today's philosophical status quo
Review: This book is really two books in one. The first half in large part lays out MacIntyre's wholesale critique of contemporary moral/ethical/deontological discussion. This in my opinion is the book's greatest accomplishment; the first two chapters are a must read for all inquiring philisophical minds inasmuch as they unflatteringly lay bare the emptiness of any and all moral discussion in the post-Enlightenment West. The second half comprises MacIntyre's attempt at reconstructing a deontological system predicated on individual virtue. Special mention should be given to the chapter on life experienced as a narrative, a needed defense of the pre-Humean/Whiteheadian understanding of the human being as having an individual substance, a neccesary principle for making sense of the concepts of moral responsibility. I can't recommend this book enough, it is a gem admist the piles of pithy philisophical work coming out of the academy these days.
|
