Groping for Moral Certitude (After Virtue 5)

In Chapters 4 and 5 MacIntyre begins his critique of modern political thought, going backwards from existentialism to the early modern period, tracing the steps that led to the disconnect with the older Aristotelian/Christian tradition. After finding that no modern political thought has been able to adequately ground its preferences for certain moral principles in anything solid, he argues that most of these philosophers operated with unacknowledged preferences for traditional values but had no good argument for them. He then begins the process of arguing for a teleological perspective--the idea that we can judge things (and people?) good or bad based on whether or not they fulfill their natural function. This is, of course, the most controversial element in MacIntyre's argument so far, because it may be construed as threatening the freedom of the individual to invent himself.

[armandvista]

Thanks for the great video! In regards to the later minutes of the video, MacIntyre argues that the self - the “I” - is not autonomous nor self-determined. He draws a lot from Heidegger and Gadamer, in arguing that what the “I” is, is not above and beyond the social relationships and essence of the person. There is no Self that is distinct from these things. To ask “why should I as a man, work?” is from the get go unintelligible, because the “I” is defined in part by you being a man (and other social identities or essential features of course). You should work because you are a man! The conflict within the Self as to what ends to pursue is properly characterized like this; “Why should a woman become a mother?” as opposed to “Why should I become a mother?”.

[dharmatycoon]

Love these videos, really helps to watch them as I read the book. Absoloutely agree with you on his criticism of Kant - happy Im not alone in thinking this (thought maybe something was going over my head). Thanks for the awesome content!

[onixz]

Just noting: the statement of Kant's ethics is quite incorrect, here. It is not the golden rule, and it does not depend on people's preferences, etc. The universalization formula has to do with whether your maxim can be universalized *without contradiction*.

[groupchat]

Are planning a lecture on Epistimology?

[groupchat]

I think we are splitting hairs here with morality. Its not that every action can be moral or immoral. Its that as a society what do we say about each. Its a narrative message not a philosophical one. I think philosophy maybe thinks they own too much of the spirit at some point the the thought has to move into action rational or moral or the opposite. What matters is the stories affect on the audience. I think if you look any narrative especially religious the wise power strutures in place did make the dive and for longvity sake it worked evem though the literally everything changed.