Abstract
Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre, born 1929 in Glasgow, has not always been fond of Aristotle or of what is nowadays labelled ‘Aristotelian Naturalism’. Today he calls himself a ‘Thomistic Aristotelian’, but this is far from self-evident given the many changes throughout his life and work. In the end, MacIntyre has elaborated a Thomistic Aristotelianism that is meant as a criticism of those forms of ethical and political thinking which neglect the rational as well as the social and animal nature of human beings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In “On Having Survived the Academic Philosophy of the Twentieth Century”, published in O’Rourke (2013), 17–34, MacIntyre comments on the changeful way of his intellectual development.
- 2.
Republished in MacIntyre (2006b), 145–158, here 151.
- 3.
An enterprise that created three different books over a period of four decades: Marxism: An Interpretation (1953), actually MacIntyre’s first publication; Marxism and Christianity (1968), a revised version of the 1953 book but without chapter 4 in which MacIntyre deals with Marx’ theory of practice; and finally the second edition of Marxism and Christianity (1995), now again including chapter 4.
- 4.
All quotations taken from MacIntyre (2007), 52–53.
- 5.
MacIntyre also speaks of “man as a functional concept” and compares that to the way we define the watch or the farmer in terms of the purpose or function which they are characteristically expected to serve; cf. MacIntyre (2007), 58.
- 6.
For a more detailed account of how Kierkegaard fits into MacIntyre’s scheme, cf. Davenport and Rudd (2001).
- 7.
MacIntyre is aware of the fact that his analysis of the crisis of modern moral philosophy is similar to the one G.E.M. Anscombe provided in her essay from 1958; cf. MacIntyre (2007), 53.
- 8.
For a short-list comprising the seven most important claims of After Virtue, arranged by MacIntyre himself, and first published in Analyse und Kritik 1984, cf. Knight (1998), 69–72.
- 9.
Christopher Stephen Lutz calls it an “agency-based account of the virtues” (Lutz 2012, 150).
- 10.
This, at least, is the first part of the rather complex definition of practice in MacIntyre (2007), 187.
- 11.
David Miller has objected that MacIntyre unfortunately does not differ between practices that serve social ends beyond themselves, i.e. productive practices such as those that constitute farming, and practices that do not; cf. Hornton and Mendus (1994), 250–52. In his reply, MacIntyre holds (ibid., 284): “The aim internal to such productive crafts, when they are in good order, is never only to catch fish, or to produce beef or milk, or to build houses. It is to do so in a manner consonant with the excellences of the craft, so that not only is there a good product, but the craftsperson is perfected through and in his or her activity.”
- 12.
For many scholars, e.g. for Thomas D’Andrea (2006), 267, this chapter is “the heart of After Virtue”.
- 13.
This explanation can be found in Christopher Stephen Lutz (2012), chap. 1 and 150–160, who is familiar with MacIntyre’s entire work and ranks among the best MacIntyre scholars. According to Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (see Kühnlein and Lutz-Bachmann 2015, 191 and 194), however, there is another explanation. Lutz-Bachmann thinks that MacIntyre sticks to the idea that the history of moral philosophy since the age of Enlightenment is a history of decline. With this attitude, MacIntyre adopts the method of critical theory and therefore abstains from a comprehensive justification of his own moral beliefs.
- 14.
Cf. Aristotle, Poetics 13 (1452b 30 – 1453a 35) and Nicomachean Ethics VI 13 (1144b 32 – 1145a).
- 15.
Cf. for this MacIntyre (1988), x.
- 16.
Cf. MacIntyre 2007, 201.
- 17.
As Kelvin Knight (1998), 281, observes, the concept of narration and its significance for a person’s self-understanding has become a commonplace in postmodern thinking; After Virtue, however, was one of the first works in English to articulate this approach.
- 18.
It was already in 1996 that Kelvin Knight tried to save MacIntyre from the objection of being a conservative thinker and to give reasons for the claim that, quite to the contrary, MacIntyre’s Aristotelianism is rather revolutionary. Knight’s paper is republished in Blackledge and Knight (2011), 20–34.
- 19.
Walter Reese-Schäfer is convinced that MacIntyre meets all five conditions characteristic of communitarianism; cf. Reese-Schäfer in Kühnlein and Lutz-Bachmann (2015), p. 205. Similarly, for Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, MacIntyre, together with Charles Taylor and Michael Walzer, belongs to the most important communitarian thinkers; cf. ibid., 193–94. Robin Celikates (2008), 757, by contrast, realises not more than a remote similarity between MacIntyre and other communitarians.
- 20.
Cf. Haldane in Hornton and Mendus (1994), 91–107, here 97. MacIntyre’s reply to the reproach of being an ethical relativist can be found in the post-script to the second and the prologue to the third edition of After Virtue. Among those who try to save him from this reproach are Lutz (2004), chap. 3, Lutz (2012), 176–179, and D’Andrea (2006), 403–410.
- 21.
This provokes the criticism of both liberalists and Neo-Marxists. According to the liberalists, one can justify important modern civil virtues by a benevolent critique of liberal proceduralism (cf. Macedo 1990). According to the Neo-Marxists, the strength of MacIntyre’s diagnosis and the weakness of his therapy are in striking contrast (cf. Celikates 2008, 758). Jeffrey L. Nicholas (2012), 220, however, emphasises that, for MacIntyre, getting the Thomists and Marxists speaking to each other is vital. – For the attempt to explain moral progress between different traditions by means of process ontology rather than by means of Thomism, cf. Bellantoni (2000).
- 22.
As MacIntyre claims, this is meant as a severe criticism on a widespread but entirely mistaken picture of human nature: “We have, on this view, a first animal nature and in addition a second distinctively human nature.” (MacIntyre 1999, 50)
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics IV 3: 1124a 1.
- 26.
Cf. MacIntyre 1999, xi and 121–128. MacIntyre also prefers Aquinas over Aristotle with respect to the virtues of benevolence and misericordia. Without these virtues, he claims, we cannot extend our communal relationships so as to include others. For a critical assessment of this part of the book, cf. Honneth in Kühnlein and Lutz-Bachmann (2015), 465–470, and Dunne in O’Rourke (2013), 57–82.
- 27.
- 28.
Cf. Knight in O’Rourke (2013), 84–85.
- 29.
So, for instance, for Knight in Blackledge and Knight (2011), 20–34.
Bibliography
Books by Alasdair MacIntyre
(1953). Marxism: An interpretation. London: SCM Press.
(1958). The unconscious: A conceptual analysis. London: Routledge.
(1967). A short history of ethics: A history of moral philosophy from the homeric age to the twentieth century. London: Routledge,21998.
(1968). Marxism and Christianity. London: Duckworth,21995 (= 1995).
(1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,21984,32007 (= 2007).
(1988). Whose justice? Which rationality? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
(1990). Three rival versions of moral enquiry: Encyclopaedia, genealogy, and tradition. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
(1999). Dependent rational animals: Why human beings need the virtues. London: Duckworth.
(2005). Edith Stein: A philosophical prologue 1913–1922. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
(2006a). The tasks of philosophy: Selected essays, volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2006b). Ethics and politics: Selected essays, volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2009). God, philosophy, universities: A selective history of the catholic philosophical tradition. London: Continuum.
Commented List of Literature
Bellantoni, L. (2000). Moral progress: A process critique of MacIntyre. New York: State University of New York Press.
Bellantoni tries to show that Whitehead’s account of process ontology can better explain how a dialogue between different traditions is possible.
Blackledge, P., & Knight, K. (Eds.). (2011). Virtue and politics: Alasdair MacIntyre’s revolutionary Aristotelianism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
The essays in this volume examine MacIntyre’s Marxism and Aristotelianism as well as his criticism on Marxism and Aristotelianism. They also explore the possibility of using MacIntyre’s claims for a critical theory of modernity. MacIntyre himself contributes to the volume with an essay as well as with a reply to his critics.
Cunningham, L. S. (Ed.). (2009). Intractable disputes about the natural law: Alasdair MacIntyre and critics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
The book traces back to a request the former Cardinal Ratzinger addressed to the Catholic universities in the US to endeavour to defend values which are rooted in the nature of human beings. It is the University of Notre Dame’s contribution. In a 50-page paper, MacIntyre elaborates on previous thoughts of his own. Philosophers, theologians and lawyers from the University of Notre Dame discuss his claims. At the end, MacIntyre replies to his critics.
D’Andrea, T. D. (2006). Tradition, rationality, and virtue: The thought of Alasdair MacIntyre. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
An exhaustive and systematic analysis of the works of MacIntyre. The bibliography contains all papers MacIntyre has published until 2006.
Hornton, J., & Mendus, S. (Eds.). (1994). After MacIntyre: Critical perspectives on the work of Alasdair MacIntyre. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Various authors discuss different aspects of MacIntyre’s work. Charles Taylor, for example, deals with MacIntyre’s conception of justice, John Haldane with MacIntyre’s Thomism, and Philip Pettit with MacInytre’s position concerning liberalism und communitarianism. MacIntyre replies to all his critics.
Knight, K. (Ed.). (1998). The MacIntyre reader. Cambridge: Polity Press.
The reader contains extracts from MacIntyre’s most important books and essays as well as two interviews with MacIntyre from 1990 and 1991. The 20-page Guide for Further Reading is a commented bibliography of the works on MacIntyre until 1998, including references to non-English books.
Kühnlein, M., & Lutz-Bachmann, M. (Hrsg.) (2015). Vermisste Tugend? Zur Philosophie Alasdair MacIntyres. Wiesbaden: Berlin University Press.
Well-known philosophers, most of them German-speaking, discuss MacIntyre’s claims and try to connect them to issues in modern moral philosophy. Among the contributors are Robert Pippin, Vittorio Hösle, Friedo Ricken, Henning Ottmann, Annemarie Pieper, Theo Kobusch and Axel Honneth.
Lutz, C. S. (2004). Tradition in the ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre: Relativism, thomism, and philosophy. Lanham: Lexington Books.
After an exhaustive description of MacIntyre’s changeful intellectual development and a careful examination of his understanding of tradition, Lutz sheds light on the questions whether and in what sense MacIntyre’s thinking can be called relativistic, or rather Thomistic, and, if Thomistic, philosophical after all.
Lutz, C. S. (2012). Reading Alasdair MacIntyre’s after virtue. London: Continuum.
A helpful commentary on MacIntyre’s most important book, summarising and explaining its main claims. Lutz also tries to elucidate the ideas behind MacIntyre’s thinking.
McMylor, P. (1994). Alasdair MacIntyre: Critic of modernity. London: Routledge.
As a sociologist, McMylor is interested in the social and cultural impact of MacIntyre’s work. He first gives a general survey of the political and cultural influences identifiable in MacIntyre’s writings, most of all his Marxism and his apprehension of Christianity. McMylor then discusses in what sense MacIntyre’s work has influenced the theory of social change and, more generally, critical social science as such.
Murphy, M. C. (Ed.). (2003). Alasdair MacIntyre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seven authors analyse and discuss MacIntyre’s claims, among them Jean Porter commenting on MacIntyre’s concept of tradition, David Solomon exploring MacIntyre’s stance towards modern moral philosophy, Mark Murphy presenting MacIntyre’s political philosophy, and Terry Pinkard dealing with MacIntyre’s criticism of modernity. The book also contains an exhaustive bibliography.
Nicholas, J. L. (2012). Reason, tradition, and the good. MacIntyre’s tradition-constituted reason and Frankfurt school critical theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
A striking attempt of the cofounder of the International Society of MacIntyrean Enquiry to let Critical Theory and Aristotelian Thomism, or Habermas and MacIntyre, converge into a single account of emancipatory reason.
O’Rourke, F. (Ed.). (2013). What happened in and to moral philosophy in the twentieth century? Philosophical essays in honor of Alasdair MacIntyre. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
The contributors to this book are well-known philosophers such as John Haldane, Kelvin Knight, Raymond Geuss, James McEvoy, Owen Flanagan and William Desmond. Each of them concentrates on one or the other of MacInytre’s influential claims in order either to expand on the issue, or to provide alternative considerations. MacIntyre himself contributes an introduction and an epilogue.
Other References
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. In M. Geach & L. Gormally (Eds.), Human life, action and ethics: Essays by G.E.M. Anscombe (pp. 169–194). Exeter: Imprint Academic 2005.
Aristotle. (2002). Nicomachean ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle. (1987). Poetics. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Celikates, R. (2008). Alasdair MacIntyre. In S. Gosepath, W. Hinsch, & B. Rössler (Eds.), Handbuch der Politischen Philosophie und Sozialphilosophie, Band 1, (pp. 757-759). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Davenport, J. J., & Rudd, A. (Eds.). (2001). Kierkegaard after MacIntyre: Essays on freedom, narrative, and virtue. La Salle: Open Court.
Fitzmaurice, J. (2016). Virtue ecclesiology: An exploration in the good church. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Foot, P. (2001). Natural goodness. Oxford: Clarendon.
Geach, P. (1977). The virtues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larmore, C. (1989). Review of whose justice? Which rationality? Journal of Philosophy, 86, 437–442.
Macedo, S. (1990). Liberal virtues. Citizenship, virtue, and community in liberal constitutionalism. Oxford: Clarendon.
Murphy, N (Ed.). (2003). Virtues and practices in the Christian tradition: Christian ethics after MacIntyre. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Voorhoeve, A. (2009). Interview with Alasdair MacIntyre. In Conversations on ethics (pp. 111–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Beier, K. (2020). Virtue and Tradition: Alasdair MacIntyre’s Thomistic-Aristotelian Naturalism. In: Hähnel, M. (eds) Aristotelian Naturalism. Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature, Mind and Action, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37576-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37576-8_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37575-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37576-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)