preview

Why Is Alasdair Macintyre Unethical

Decent Essays
Open Document

Alasdair Macintyre's brand of country-loving strikes me as a bit disturbing. It amounts to a support of local and weird (because of wrong thinking) attitudes of submission to tradition. What's (related to what's right and wrong) excellent or honest and good about loving one's own team? And these attitudes can and do quite easily turn ugly and hateful and warlike. I'd even go so far as to say that this brand of country-loving is a moral failing, a good thing/a good quality spoiler and, insofar as it makes up a lack of concern for non-Americans, a case of arrested development (becoming smarter about what's right and wrong). In Macintyre's ethical representation, patriotism should be seen as being a part of a community and being concerned with …show more content…

Certainly, the "my country - right or wrong" (believing that your country is the best) that is often seen could not be reasonable in Macintyre's outline. As for the statement (that someone has done something bad) of particularism: one of the limits of being human is that we are born at a particular time, and live in a particular place. We are not superior. So, we have relationships with those around us - with our families and the communities we live in. These relationships are greater than our bond with the rest of people/(the kindness of people), and therefore have greater power. This is not to say that we are not concerned with the welfare of people around the world - it is a question of what weight do we give these concerns. For example, we are often more worried about the configurations of the tax systems in our own communities than in other communities, such as Afghanistan or Iraq. A (belief that all people will be saved by God) would, in way of thinking/basic truth/rule, object to this but it is hard to argue (since one could legally/really and truly as what business of ours is it to interfere in these relationships). Another aspect …show more content…

I think it is correct to say that on an Aristotelian explanation the clusters we belong to can necessitate our devotion and that they form us, but for Aristotle political association is (having to do with figuring out the quality of things without measuring them with numbers) different from, say, the bingo league. In fact, most of book 1 of the Politics is dedicated to showing how politics is basically different from other forms of association. If we lose track of this difference I think there is the danger of making the mistake the (very old time in history) made of understanding Aristotle to be calling man a "social animal" instead of a "political

Get Access