Customer Reviews

A Short History of Ethics: A History of Moral Philosophy from the Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a reissue of a 1964 work. MacIntyre provides a new introduction that critically reviews what he sees as the strength and weaknesses of the book. The book itself, however, is unchanged from the 1964 text.

Beginners will find this a difficult book to work through. MacIntyre presumes the reader has a basic understanding of the ideas and philosophers he discusses.

But for those with adequate background this is a wonderful book, full of many insights. Be warned, though, this book is not a neutral review of the subject matter. In this book MacIntyre lays the groundwork for his own particular version of ethics (developed most fully in After Virtue).

Much of the book is dense and part of it is, arguably, poorly written. But it is worth the work needed to get through it.

I was always in a certain kind of doubt when it was asked of me to recommend one or the other of numerous histories of philosophy. They are not your ordinary texts, which you can browse about in your leasure time. They often require some thinking to really grasp what author had in mind and where does he stand at all. After all history of philosophy is elusive subject even to profficient ones. Looking back, in something less than seven thousand years of culture as we know it (it began with emergence of Summerian epos - Gilgamesh), one finds himself before wast ammount of data, to put it that way. When faced with them, one feels compelled to escape in any direction avaliable to him.

But neverthelles, something drives you to continue your studies, to learn and feed upon knowledge of others, to live in times long forgotten and to think an re-think thought again and again. But without that initial spark which puts great flames in motion all would be in vain. MacIntyre book is one that feeds that flame, helping it to grow.

If one really wants to understand key questions of ethics and how, at the first place they came to be, one should start with MacIntyre. You won't find your asnwers listed here, rather contrary, MacIntyre, in his almost positivistic scepticism, states many pro et contra arguments for theories presented in his book, that reader finds himself confused on many occasions. But precisely that kind of expose is what drives one to continue searching and to complete questions posed by MAcIntyre. A task that takes whole lifetime and more.

In the end I have to mention that ethics described here concernes itself mostly with western ethics and ethical thought. East is left out. For which purpose, I'll let you find for yourself.

Alasdair MacIntyre's "A Short History of Ethics" is an uneven attempt at examining the history of Western culture through the development of ethics. It is quite clear that MacIntyre aims to advance his thesis of the decline of morality and ethical philosophy in the modern era with this short history of ethics. MacIntyre is generally skeptical and critical of most ethical theories, and offers a succinct criticism of most theories immediately after introducing them. While some chapters, like those on Homeric and pre-classical and Hellenistic Greek Philosophy, Christianity, New Values, and Modern Moral philosophy, offer engaging insights, others are redundant and seemingly irrelevant to the advancement of his general thesis. MacIntyre admits in the preface that this book suffers from too many aims. This problem is most troubling when MacIntyre attempts to offer a ~20-page summary of Plato or Aristotle which can neither be expected to inform the advanced reader or to introduce these seminal philosophers to beginning students of philosophy. While there are surely better "History of Philosophy" and "History of Ethics" books available, MacIntyre's "Short History of Ethics" occasionally surprises the reader with insightful criticisms and arguments which make it an uneven if mildly engaging little book on Ethics.

Professor Alasdair MacIntyre in "A Short History of Ethics" produced an interesting book covering the long history of moral philosophy. The author provides a historical background and perspective for studying the selected texts on moral philosophy.

The book first provides the reader with an account of Greek thought and the philosophical basis of their thinking. The author then proceeds to discuss the history of philosophy to the present day. The reader is then able to appreciate the discussion of moral philosophy in the appropriate historical context.

I enjoyed reading the book, although I would not classify it among the best books on the subject. The author seems to assume that the reader has some understanding of philosophy which would make it difficult for those without some understanding of the subject to follow his arguments. However, the book should be of value to people with an interest in moral philosophy.

The title of the book is misleading. It gives one the impression that AM will gives us a survey of the history of ethical positions. While he does do this to a degree, that is not the point of the book. AM's argument is that key terms in ethics change meaning with the change in language and/or social custom (269). Secondly, key moves in philosophy and social theory change ethical foundations.

AM begins with Greek ethics and gives a thorough review of it. Interestingly, AM wrote this book before he endorsed Aristotelian ethics as the way out of the modern morass. He is more critical of Aristotle here than he is in After Virtue.

The next key move is Christianity. This section is weak for a number of reasons. AM had not yet converted to Christianity and as a result he depended on much out-of-date and long-refuted German scholarship on Christianity. Secondly, ten pages on Christianity? He tried to summarize Augustine and Aquinas in two paragraphs! That being said, his summary, while too brief, was accurate. Augustine and Aquinas reinterpreted key sections of Plato and Aristotle, respectively, into explicitly Christian categories.

But something changed in the history of Christianity. Luther arose. Luther introduced a character that had been absent in ethical discussions: the individual. Luther also introduced new rules for social ethics. Luther bifurcated morality by positing absolute and unconditional ethical commands on the one hand (God says so) with the self-justifying rules of market and state on the other (124). This paved the way for autonomy and secularism.

The rest of Western ethics can be seen as a footnote or an outworking to this. With the idea of contract introduced, social ethics now revolved around the tenuous idea of "natural rights." Western thinkers could not (still can't!) reconcile an authoritarian state with limits to the state's power. Locke tried and came very close to doing this.

Evaluation:
The Good: the reader has a good understanding after reading AM. This book's argument is much tighter than that of After Virtue. Also, AM does a superb job in showing (hinting, rather) the inevitability of interpreting ethical norms from within a community. He perfects this move in After Virtue.

The Bad: The writing style could be improved. It is like watching an elephant run. I forgot how man times the author used the word "just" (and not in the sense of justice). Secondly, as he notes in his preface, his section on Christianity is weak. Thirdly, he spends too much time on analysis and too little on exposition. This is okay if the reader already understands the thinker in question. It is annoying if he doesn't.

My title might have given the impression of a negative review of the book. Far from it. Alasdair MacIntyre is the most important ethicist I have read, and I heartily commend all of his works.

A classic of MacIntyre, written from his Aristotelian point of view.

This is a deceptive book.
*
It promises an outline of the history of Ethics "from the Homeric age to the Twentieth Century", that is, with a perspective wider than the one usually limited to great "canonical" philosophers and oriented to a narrow readership.
But the result is definitely disappointing.
*
I really disliked this book, and cannot recommend it.
*
Before posting this comment, I took time to read observations of other readers, to check if my impression was shared.
Most of them complain about very poor style ("the book is poorly written" - Panjack), "poor structure" and "poor content" (J. de Lijster - "patchy historical survey" - Fiske), excessive focusing ("Beginners will find this a difficult book to work through" - Panjack), abuse of modern perspective to judge (and not to present in a impartial way) very different attitudes ("He frequently announces arguments that he does not work out, and he sets out lines that end in the mist" - J. de Lijster) and in the end excessive brevity ("He tries to cover too much ground too quickly" - Fiske) resulting in approximation and confusion.
Given these remarks, it is amazing the average vote is still so high, even taking account of the fame and respect that professor MacIntyre can command by the fame of his other works.
*
This essay is flawed under all the aspects under which you can look at.
*
If the style is gray and dull, and certainly not welcoming the reader, the argument has been developed very poorly.
I'm still perplexed at how could professor MacIntyre truly believed to be able to reduce about 3.000 years of history of Ethics in about 250 pages!
*
The most annoying feature is the deceptiveness of the title: the historical and sociological framework is used only when it suits the author, and in a most conventional way.
After being presented with a very ordinary opposition between an Homeric aristocratic attitude and the new more "democratic" posture of the V century b.C, the method is almost totally dropped to return to a dull diachronic presentation of great philosophers (great philosophers and not, alas, relevant themes).
*
For an introduction to the history of Ethics, as a reader I'd expect to receive at least a definition of the relevant terms: religion, morality, positive morality, negative morality, ethos, ethics, politics and ethics.
But Mr. MacIntyre possibly believes that definition is a waste of time in a historical survey with ensuing confusion.
*
If definition is not produced, likewise no attempt is done to explain why Ethics emerged for the first time in Greece as a distinct field of philosophical enquiry.
*
We are spared as well the - historically relevant - analysis of the relationship (and conflict) between religion (Abraham who is required by his God to kill his only son with no apparent reason), aristocratic ethos (the role of feud and honor), negative morality ("You shall not..." in the Bible), positive morality ("Love thy neighbor" in the Gospel), politics as a kind of ethics (Plato and Aristotle, but also Socrates who submits to the unjust law that put him to death), political justice vs. religion in relevant moral issues (a theme developed in the Greek classical tragedy - specially in the Oresteia, but also in the Oedipus), the individual and social dimension in ethics (look at the debate on death penalty, for example - or the second amendment of the Constitution), the role of free will (the debate inside Christianity) and the role of man as moral agent and of man as man capable of deciding to act rightly - or to rebel authority.
*
All these themes are best suited to be expounded with an historical perspective.
But in this essay you cannot find anything of this.
I finished reading the book with immense melancholy for what it could have been and is not.
*
Besides, in a academic survey it could be interesting if the author could have taken account of relationship between ethics and other fields: the role of ancient skepticism in the rise of a new conscienze (and interestingly in the new science), Ethics and Logics, but also lesser known fields, like Mathematics and Geometry - the fascination for the geometric method in XVII Century (Hobbes reading Euclid, Spinoza's "Ethica more geometrico demonstrata", Leibniz's moral calculus, up to Franklin's aborted "Art of Virtue").
*
Some remarks of the writer appear surprising - if not ridiculous.
The so called notion of the "mean" in Aristotle was in fact a deep rooted theme in Greek culture and religiosity - and not just "the single most difficult concept in the Ethics" (pag.65).
*
In the end this book is a complete bore.
It could give testimony of the all-human attempt to investigate on the themes of how to live a meaningful life, how to act responsibly and in the end learn how to confront the idea of death. Ethics, after all, is also the Promethean attempt of man to disenfranchise from oracles, soothsayers and miracles; to reconsider human action in a pervasive all-human logical framework, and, in the end, to vindicate the importance of human dignity.
But this book is a patchy collection of second hand ideas, scattered here and there in the usual chronological order.
*
I prefer posting positive remarks, but in this case it would not be fair to other fellow readers.
*
I'm used to recommend books I appreciated about the argument I'm reviewing.
In this case it is compulsory to mention:
- "Morality" by Bernard Gert, that is until now the best introduction to the argument I had the chance to read.
*
You are truly welcome if you can suggest other readings or just share ideas and comments!
*
Thanks for reading.

Professor MacIntyre's book is in some respects fine, in other respects terrible. The good thing is that he offers valuable insights and arguments for an historical approach to the analysis of moral judgments. He covers a large area, and has at times pointly summaries. The bad thing is that his text is poorly structured, and at times has a poor content. He frequently announces arguments that he does not work out, and he sets out lines that end in the mist. This fact is the more irritating, because, apart from a the chapter division, the lay-out completely lacks structure. Moreover, he seems rather biassed against (protestant) christian ethics, and tries to understand it apart from a notion so fundamental as creation. As a result, he misses the opportunity to understand both the revelational aspects of creation and the rational aspects of revelation. Not surprisingly, he cannot bridge the gap between rationality and revelation, and he ends up soon with an evaluation that is coloured by words like 'irrational', and 'arbitrary', leaving the reader with a seriously flawed picture of a important factor in contemporary ethics.

The book arrived in a VERY timely fashion!! The book was in okay condition (not spectacular), but good enough for me and worth the savings.