The Moral Problems of Liberalism: Alasdair MacIntyre Explained

[@ainemurray1191]

"As I write, large numbers of working-class Americans, especially black Americans, have been demonstrating in the streets against the arbitrary, brutal, and sometimes lethal mistreatment of black young men by white police officers. Those of them interviewed on television as to their reasons for acting as they did were highly articulate, made important distinctions between good and bad reasons for various kinds of response, and showed themselves to be in varying degrees both responsible and reflective." MacIntyre, 2016. MacIntyre was critical of academia and detachment from lived experience but to use him to denounce what you call "wokeism" is just ridiculous- he was hugely informed by Marxism, even after he converted to Catholicism.

[@tobinjohnston7835]

Amen. This video seems a poor reading of After Virtue and a disservice to the man.

[@shanonsnyder9450]

MacIntyre’s commitments to liberalism don’t really track with his work in After Virtue. Huge disconnect between his thesis and his other statements, even within the text itself. I found his conclusions muddled and confused.

[@Mailrobot]

He is. He's still alive and giving talks ^_^

[@patrickholt2270]

Conservatives have a moral and Biblical blindspot resulting from their idolatrous worship of hierarchy. The glaring reality of injustice in the distribution of wealth and oncome eludes them, in their misinterpretation of scripture as in their politics, and devotion to hierarchy is one of the excuses they lean on to justify what is literally Biblical wickedness in the modern world, since they tend to be benficiaries and/or perpetrators of it, and have large financial incentives to rationalise poverty, exploitation and the oppression of workers, consumers and nature as inevitable, necessary, and divine will.

[@patrickholt2270]

Socialism and anti-capitalism isn't liberalism. Never has been. MacIntyre is extremely specific about this in Marxism and Christianity, for instance. Liberalism is bourgeois ideology, the dominant ideas of the capitalist ruling class, pro-capitalist economic theories etc. Where Socialist parties are allowed to exist, or have existed in the past, Liberal parties have been electoral as well as ideological enemies, usually siding with Conservative parties against Socialists, organised labour and the working class. @@shanonsnyder9450

[@ryanohare6538]

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, what a poor interpretation of MacIntyre. Alternatively, what a great example of how to make anything you read conform to your values!

[@philippafhelmstrm6219]

This involves many misunderstandings about MacIntyres philosophy. But I'm too tired to write a big post about it. Just be aware of it.

[@asdfasdf3989]

Any quick points you might make?

[@philippafhelmstrm6219]

@@asdfasdf3989 I'll have a look at it on the weekend^^

[@IapitusMcHeimer]

He has one or two errors but isn't bad over all

[@misterBlechle]

I have to say, I don't like how you frame MacIntyres philosophy for your own, apparently right leaning, political agenda. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with your opinion but - in my view - MacIntyre isn't really a modern right wing philosopher, or a modern conservative, neither a classical left wing philosopher. The way I understand Macintyre, he sees modern right and left wing as two sides of the same coin. If you read "Revolutionary Aristotelianism: Ethics, Resistance and Utopia" you really see how deeply Macintyre is still influenced by early Marx - which makes sense, as the early Marx was strongly influenced by Aristotelian philosophy.

[@allthingshumanities5328]

No agendas here. Just an attempt to explain MacIntyre and for people to understand him - I’ll definitely take your views on board!

[@asdfasdf3989]

What do you mean by "modern right wing" and "modern conservative"?

[@xenophon5354]

Alasdair isn’t a modern right winger it’s true, but modern neoconservativism doesn’t have a monopoly on right wing ideas. Any estimation of MacIntyre puts him on the right in the same way it does GK Chesterton, Belloc, and Wendell Berry even if they share criticisms of capitalism with Marx. It’s not Marx’s criticisms of capitalism that make him left wing but his solutions. Indeed, if one cares about traditions and communities as Alasdair does, capitalism is one of the most threatening revolutionary forces ever devised, far more effective than any left wing agitator could hope to be.

[@misterBlechle]

@@xenophon5354 yes, I can agree with that.

[@shanonsnyder9450]

Intellectual conservatism is deeply Aristotelian. You can’t have conservatism without natural teleology.

[@AJOxford-fl9si]

You keep mentioning wokeism, as if it epitomizes liberalism and the pursuit of happiness, and we can just leave out MacIntyre’s critique of capitalism.

[@niiflinstone23]

Not familiar with this content creator but the attempt to explain MacIntyre for conservative desires is audacious, if not foolhardy.

[@allthingshumanities5328]

Hi there, I think it's a shame that expressing conservative ideas is difficult to do in 2022. Did you enjoy the video?

[@niiflinstone23]

@@allthingshumanities5328 there are legitimate concerns for philosophical conservatives in times such as this but their protests can be clouded out by too much wolf crying. On the issue of MacIntyre, it beats me why you believe he'd find the nativism and nationalism-chanting right wingers do these days as something he inspires. That's all I wanted to say. MacIntyre wrote to address the moral blind spots of Marxism. He's as leftist as today's Europeans and Americans conceive leftists...a skeptic of the free market and a communitarian. He's also very much preaching to a choir (centre-) right wingers don't like. Thanks.

[@raymonddonahue7282]

@@allthingshumanities5328 It's hard to express any "idea" in 2022 because it may interfere with what the masses want right now. It may even make the masses think, but to shut down any opposition makes life easy and sleazy.

[@asdfasdf3989]

@@niiflinstone23 He's a communitarian but would be against nationalism today? Also, there are people on the dissident right who are against free market fundamentalism and mainstream conservative economics. With certain framing, you can make a distinction between the right-wing and mainstream conservatism in the US.

[@yuracracker5572]

Yeah, this is MacIntyre being used to buttress fascism and trashism.

[@raymonddonahue7282]

Agree with MacIntyre. Moral relativity is damaging lives and the West. i think it's nearly impossible for it to change.

[@GodOfTheInternets]

This video is cherry picking: “Modern systematic politics, whether liberal, *conservative*, radical, or socialist, simply has to be rejected from a standpoint that owes genuine allegiance to the tradition of the virtues; for modern politics itself expresses in its institutional forms a systematic rejection of that tradition” (After Virtue 255).

[@greengorilla]

Not a utilitarian, but Bentham had a hedonic calculus with seven criteria that looked beyond the mere instant gratification of base desires: Fecundity, duration, intensity, certainly or uncertainty, propinquity and remoteness, extent, and purity. The biggest drawback of utilitarianism is its ability to sacrifice a minority (numerically) of a population in order to secure the happiness of the majority.

[@huseyinbahrikurt6953]

what macintyre says makes very sense

[@Letik3x]

nicely said thank you soooo much ! i hven my fianls tommorow for ethics and i hope a question come up on metaethics !!

[@He.knows.nothing]

I identify myself as a virtue ethicist and i ground it ontologically in moral naturalism which MacIntyre claims to be the objective source of morality via our human nature, but as you claim at the end he doesnt reaply support it as far as we can tell. I cant help but believe that virtue ethics is inherently relative as its existence is contingent upon the phenomenology of human experiences of virtues which are themselves each unique to the individual who experiences them. Of course aspects of the phenomenology of what is good and virtuous are shared because we are all humans and the foundations of our experiences are all grounded in the same human biological realities, but even those realities differ and MacIntyre seems to believe that because this is normal for most people then it must be true for all, an argument Thomas Aquinas himself would make, but not one that can actually be objectively proven, its just an appeal to majority being used to presuppose the objectivity of a standard. This leads me to percieve that we arent operating with something either wholly objective nor subjective, but something that manifests relatively through the interactions between the two in such a way that not every moral idea can be considered valid, but also that different moral ideas that are valid can exist that contradict each other in such that we must find a way to make peace within the agnostic context of our paradox. You use abortion as an example and this is entirely the case for this conversation. Even if morality was wholly objective, without any means of measurement, there is simply no way to determine objectively whether or not one moral idea usurps the morality of another. We can believe in such a thing as a soul or a purpose to again validate our presupposition that a fetus' life is equal to that of an adult and their moral worth would usurp the right to automomy of the mother, but we are barred from actually grounding that belief in reality. Advocating for pro life is just as much an act of faith as arguing pro choice for someone who lacks both of those presuppositions as well as the ability to disprove them. An agnostic frame for morality such as my presentation of relative virtue ethics seems much more compatible with the only dimension of morality that we can realistically derive information from which is our abilility to rationalize the lived experiences of moral phenomenology, i.e. virtue.

[@asdfasdf3989]

Are you familiar with Keith Woods and Joel Davis?

[@allthingshumanities5328]

I am not - what are they about?

[@asdfasdf3989]

@@allthingshumanities5328 They are members of the dissident right and they have done work covering philosophy and political thought, among other things. You might be interested in some of their work. They each have a KZbin channel.

[@benlenz5482]

God in heaven, have you actually read any MacIntyre? To take just one example, he is quite clear in the postscript to after virtue that he is NOT defending tradition as such but a particular aristotillean tradition of virtues he lays out in the book. He also says there (and on many other occassions) that he is NOT defending virtue ethics or communitarianism, nor has he to my knowledge commented on wokeism at all despite being quite alive. The critique of wokeism as a construct frankly would probably be liberal by his lights (which is not to say he'd defend wokeism, just that the rights framework it's critics used would be as ridiculous to him as it's inverse).

[@shanonsnyder9450]

MacIntryre doeth protest too much. He’s a communitarian, at least in AV, unless the term has no meaning at all. You can’t ground virtue ethics in social roles and practices and then claim that you aren’t a communitarian. They’re part and parcel.

[@noleenchara645]

could you kindly explain the enlightement project, i get confused in his book

[@LoGos7891]

Steven Pinker provides a much more substantial analysis of the moral and intellectual consequences of the Enlightenment in two books: "The Blank Slate" and "Enlightenment Now!" Unlike Macintyre, Pinker correctly points out that the Enlightenment was not a set of ideas, but a set of epistemic methods and standards. It was about how to think rather than what to think. Any critique of "Enlightement ideas" that misses this point is incomplete. Pinker dissects bad Enlightenment-era ideas such as Rouseau's the "noble savage," Locke's "blank slate," and Cartesian dualism because they are demonstrably false. But the important point is that the Enlightenment provided the foundational methods and standards for SHOWING that they are wrong. These methods: mechanistic reasoning over teleological reasoning, the scientific method, quantitative rigor, formal logic, methodic empiricism, universal humanism, etc., have provided the basis of the astounding progress humanity has made in the ensuing centuries, doubling the lifespan of human beings, eradicating slavery and countless diseases, and improving the quality of life for billions of people.

[@JohnWalterGates]

I will try to get my hands on Steven Pinkers books. Have to say though that the modern world is indeed pretty fake and gay. Is it really better to survive after 30 in the conditions we live in? Maybe not. Peace out bro.

[@pagantree]

This is a great synopsis of McIntyre's philosophy. I read after virtue two years ago, but needed this reminder of the key points,Thanks :)

[@raymonddonahue7282]

Moral relativity is just instant gratification. We all know it isn't good for anyone if we are honest. It enables man to have whatever he wants, without any justification other than "I want it." It's made us men without chests, and despicable.

[@bogotaangela6908]

? #Sadsadsadsad. #TalesFromThECity?

[@disciplemike1]

Barak Obama once said that he was a christian, but he would not allow his (christian) beliefs to dictate how to govern a country. I thought that was an absurd thing to say. If a person believes in God but does not trust God's instructions as a blueprint for society, something is amiss. At any rate, obviously my filter on morality is the Bible. This is why that tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the garden. Some people will refuse God's leadership and choose to decide for themselves what is right or wrong, (moral absolutes). When it is left to our own pitiful judgment, we screw it up. As it says in Proverbs 21:2, every way of man is right in his own eyes.

[@shermanw711]

He is far from anything Christian judisim globalization that maybe his religion.

[@donjindra]

It's absurd that you think it's absurd. You are the reason so many Christians cannot be trusted. Btw, the Bible has no moral absolutes.

[@Paul77786]

Barak Obama is of the devil

[@donjindra]

@@Paul77786 If anyone is, it's Trump.

[@Paul77786]

@@donjindra so is Barak Obama from God?

[@menjii]

crazy how someone can be so deep into philosophy and miss the whole point

[@Emmett54321]

It's also crazy to see someone as intelligent as McIntyre fall for trendy lingo that is absolutely subjective. IE the concept of wokeism.

[@markdavidson650]

So it it human nature or Catholicism that we need to adhere to? Isn’t rational thought also an illustration of human nature? Lastly, isn’t ‘objective morality’ just someone’s subjective morality that has been renamed ‘objective’.

[@allthingshumanities5328]

1. The ethical structure of Catholicism is premised on an understanding of human nature. Thomas Aquinas was the one to argue that we could discover the truth of Christian doctrine through reason and rationality. 2. Rational thought is only an illustration of human nature if you use the way 'the way we are' as the foundation of moral reasoning. 3. Objective morality are moral truths that are true to all individuals, regardless of culture and time etc. Thanks for your questions Mark!

[@donjindra]

"Lastly, isn’t ‘objective morality’ just someone’s subjective morality that has been renamed ‘objective’." That's pretty much the state of things until science evolves enough to settle the question. Regardless, Christians cannot point to moral absolutes in their Bible. The Ten Commandments sure aren't moral absolutes and I know of no Christian who applies them as such.

[@raymonddonahue7282]

no it's not.

[@Luxamor-8]

@@allthingshumanities5328 the answer is found in metacognition and hopeful consequent self-transcendence, where 'self' the originator of protective delusion, due to originally naivety of causality and consequent reactivity 'sin', is realised, in retrospect, to create aspects of subjective pseudo-morality built upon fear. This includes groupings such as religions and political groups where instead of the individual working to Realise morality there's, often, the giving into a proxy for the feeling of group protection, comfort, in sect-arian mass delusion, corruption, lost to the self-transcendent Enlightened roots. To Realise Self beyond self, where Absolute Morality exists in transcendence, as per the original meaning of major religions, the group delusional cult-ures that 'The One' (pure undifferentiated Child REAlIsed) is born into and goes along with and simultaneously reacts to, must be deconstructed and compared to others to perceive the commonality, sifting through the dross to find esoteric true moral gold that is our common humanity and is Realised perennially in self-transcendent Oneness, where the original Child 'True Self' is REALised beyond delusion (veil lifted) totally unself-centred again, though realised and cognitive of the true origin, the super-natural origin, the true centre of true reality, beyond self (in mind) where Absolute Animating Joy exists eternally, beyond causality, illuminated by transcendent Creator of Reality deeply residing in our Humanity and then Realising being a focus of the illumination in the world 'in Christ', Oneness-Samadhi 💖👼👁️

[@lsobrien]

It was fine until you brought in Peterson, pretending he is a "philosopher".

[@Emmett54321]

The concept of human nature is subjective especially chronologically. One cannot accurately surmise the role of human nature comparative to morality because both are subjective. The concept of objective morality is a flawed and has no allowance for cultural dichotomies. For example, moral code within biblical Scripts may not be accurate due to the endless amounts of different translations as well as the misinterpretation of cultures within antiquity. The second topic I'd like to address is cultural morality within the prehistoric Society in Scotland itself also known as the pictish kingdom. Before the Advent of Christianity pictish culture had a heavy reliance on a matriarchal hierarchy. Denying this is Insidious and serves an ulterior motive based upon post-renaissance chauvinism. To state that the essence of liberalism was only prevalent in a post-renaissance period is not only inaccurate but damaging to cultures which did not base their morality off of scripture. That notion is biblically centered to directly counter the ideology of matriarchal societies. It is the future not the bug. In my personal opinion the presence of liberalism is a direct reaction to the oppressive nature of Western chauvinism. Without the presence and over-reliance on chauvinism liberalism would have no need to exist.