While writing this paper, I realized that one of the chief problematic aspects of moral philosophy is in the context of modernity and the contrast between rival traditions. So, what is the ethical conflict in modernity? MacIntyre describes it this way:
The histories of expressivist agents are primarily histories of their affections, of what they have cared about and of how they came to care about what they care about. The histories of NeoAristotelians are histories of how they succeeded or failed in becoming better judges of what it is for a human being to flourish qua human being and to act accordingly . . . expressivists are unable to reckon with important aspects of themselves…their activities over extended periods of time can only be …show more content…
MacIntyre feels they cause question to arise using there traditional reasoning that they do not quite answer in the ways that would fit modern situations. Nonetheless, MacIntyre is concerned for what he refers to as “plain people” or non-philosophers. So the purpose of his writing is to be read by someone who can teach others “plain people” about how to to determine there desires and what they out to desire as well. He does it this way because he himself has questions about desires, goods, and ‘good’ philosophical issues. He knows that the average person does too. So as he is figuring it out for himself, so can we for ourselves. Reflection is apart of human nature and so is desire. So it is vital to our development that we be knowledgable in our desires and what we ought to desire. Throughout the book he steadily analyzes principal philosophical disputes in moral philosophy. This is why he implements the Aristotelain and Expressivist methods. MacIntyre pits these two accounts against one another because it is crucial to our human development for us to understand what it would be like to understand what Macintyre refers to as “modern conditions” from the perspectives of NeoAristoteliam and …show more content…
Naturally, having read his prior works I was not surprised he rang philosophies finest such as Aquinas and Aristotle to enable his biases to do with reasoning and its correlation to moralities, modernities, and desires, ‘good’, and goods. Even his implementation of the Frege-Geach Problem came to no surprise. My purpose from that point on was to devise a philosophiical alighnemnt between NeoAristotelianism and Expessivim. My intentions were to assess the claim made by MacIntyre in regards to two perspectives before establishing my account that gives reasons why you should reject MacIntyre’s claim. In Part One, I addressed MacIntyre’s interpretation of expressivism. For MacIntyre Expressivisim is a view that holds moral statements to more value than descriptive statements. Expressivist are often ones to favor desires and stances that align with their attitudes. The main idea behind expressivisim is that they use moral statements to express their approval or disapproval of actions and desires that it be or not be performed. However, the problem with the theory remains in the fact that sometimes moral statements begin to be used in ways that do not express attitudes and fail to make sense in accordance with standard agreements and moral disagreements. In Part Two, I addressed MacIntyre’s interpretation of NeoAristotelianism. A seasoned account to do with the Greek philosopher Aristotle. To
The histories of expressivist agents are primarily histories of their affections, of what they have cared about and of how they came to care about what they care about. The histories of NeoAristotelians are histories of how they succeeded or failed in becoming better judges of what it is for a human being to flourish qua human being and to act accordingly . . . expressivists are unable to reckon with important aspects of themselves…their activities over extended periods of time can only be …show more content…
MacIntyre feels they cause question to arise using there traditional reasoning that they do not quite answer in the ways that would fit modern situations. Nonetheless, MacIntyre is concerned for what he refers to as “plain people” or non-philosophers. So the purpose of his writing is to be read by someone who can teach others “plain people” about how to to determine there desires and what they out to desire as well. He does it this way because he himself has questions about desires, goods, and ‘good’ philosophical issues. He knows that the average person does too. So as he is figuring it out for himself, so can we for ourselves. Reflection is apart of human nature and so is desire. So it is vital to our development that we be knowledgable in our desires and what we ought to desire. Throughout the book he steadily analyzes principal philosophical disputes in moral philosophy. This is why he implements the Aristotelain and Expressivist methods. MacIntyre pits these two accounts against one another because it is crucial to our human development for us to understand what it would be like to understand what Macintyre refers to as “modern conditions” from the perspectives of NeoAristoteliam and …show more content…
Naturally, having read his prior works I was not surprised he rang philosophies finest such as Aquinas and Aristotle to enable his biases to do with reasoning and its correlation to moralities, modernities, and desires, ‘good’, and goods. Even his implementation of the Frege-Geach Problem came to no surprise. My purpose from that point on was to devise a philosophiical alighnemnt between NeoAristotelianism and Expessivim. My intentions were to assess the claim made by MacIntyre in regards to two perspectives before establishing my account that gives reasons why you should reject MacIntyre’s claim. In Part One, I addressed MacIntyre’s interpretation of expressivism. For MacIntyre Expressivisim is a view that holds moral statements to more value than descriptive statements. Expressivist are often ones to favor desires and stances that align with their attitudes. The main idea behind expressivisim is that they use moral statements to express their approval or disapproval of actions and desires that it be or not be performed. However, the problem with the theory remains in the fact that sometimes moral statements begin to be used in ways that do not express attitudes and fail to make sense in accordance with standard agreements and moral disagreements. In Part Two, I addressed MacIntyre’s interpretation of NeoAristotelianism. A seasoned account to do with the Greek philosopher Aristotle. To