MacIntyre uses logic to show us by examples of others theories
that there are certain implied core values in morality, which none of the
authors used, seem to understand. Thus while Homer stressed the values and
morality of the warrior king, Aristotle his gentleman, The New Testament its
love, Franklin his prosperity, and Austen’s constancy, all for short of the
real definition and understanding of morality, but all if viewed as parallels
show the essential core of morality.
This understanding is based on the idea that struggling
to be good, will lead down the road to understanding morality itself. He takes
great pains to show by example that all the authors ideas of good are
different, but logical, based on their contexts. By removing the contexts, we
can understand their shared logic. His example is a child learning to play
chess with the interest of receiving candy. Once the child understands that
candy is not the only good from learning the game of chess, he will achieve a
greater understanding of the good chess really is; using this same logic for
adults by citing the reward of possessions, stature, leadership, etc for being
good at something, or being good as a person, leading to the understanding of
core moral truths. (Ethics, Sterba
j, 2000, p428)
He breaks these ideas down into internal and external
good. The warrior king is good through practice, an external process. Jesus was
good internally as a living example of good. Using the metaphor of a portrait
painter he shows us that the external painting process of the portrait is one
good, much like candy, and the process of understanding the procedure of
painting, is the internal good. (Ethics, Sterba j, 2000,
p429)
Xiaorong Li shows us that many times the virtues that
come to be understood by practicing good, are not the same virtues that society
may hold as being good. That is, what is considered being good by society, is
not always good for the individual.
The example she uses is the idea of a culture which has chosen its
definition of a good women, which is not good for the women herself. Following
the path chosen by China is not a good which helps the society as a whole, and
does not lead to further goodness or understanding of goodness for women
themselves. Thus the internal goodness of a Chinese woman dictated to women, is
not morally correct, even as a path to strive for, because
it does not help society or women. Therefore although China has logically stated
women are equal in law, externally, this good is not followed due to internal
feelings of bias towards women being inferior to men; and thus, in practice are
found morally wanting (Ethics, Sterba j, 2000, p470)
“Gender inequality in the PRC is not so much ignored as
misunderstood. The PRC government has, since the early days of its rule, paid
much attention, in its ideology and policy making, to women’s subordinate
status.” (Ethics, Sterba j, 2000, p469)
For me the idea of striving to be good with its rewards and
future understanding of the core of morality is a good goal; that rewards do
have a place as Franklin states for those who strive harder, and that this is a
moral reward for being good. Macintyre states these intermediate goals can lead
us to a better understanding of morality and its core values of which I am in
agreement. Li though shows us that the definition of good, may not in actuality
be good, and for me this shows the dangers of assuming that a society’s members
and government understand what is really good for its members, and increases
the need for individuals to question the definition of good, both external, and
internal, for its members.
that there are certain implied core values in morality, which none of the
authors used, seem to understand. Thus while Homer stressed the values and
morality of the warrior king, Aristotle his gentleman, The New Testament its
love, Franklin his prosperity, and Austen’s constancy, all for short of the
real definition and understanding of morality, but all if viewed as parallels
show the essential core of morality.
This understanding is based on the idea that struggling
to be good, will lead down the road to understanding morality itself. He takes
great pains to show by example that all the authors ideas of good are
different, but logical, based on their contexts. By removing the contexts, we
can understand their shared logic. His example is a child learning to play
chess with the interest of receiving candy. Once the child understands that
candy is not the only good from learning the game of chess, he will achieve a
greater understanding of the good chess really is; using this same logic for
adults by citing the reward of possessions, stature, leadership, etc for being
good at something, or being good as a person, leading to the understanding of
core moral truths. (Ethics, Sterba
j, 2000, p428)
He breaks these ideas down into internal and external
good. The warrior king is good through practice, an external process. Jesus was
good internally as a living example of good. Using the metaphor of a portrait
painter he shows us that the external painting process of the portrait is one
good, much like candy, and the process of understanding the procedure of
painting, is the internal good. (Ethics, Sterba j, 2000,
p429)
Xiaorong Li shows us that many times the virtues that
come to be understood by practicing good, are not the same virtues that society
may hold as being good. That is, what is considered being good by society, is
not always good for the individual.
The example she uses is the idea of a culture which has chosen its
definition of a good women, which is not good for the women herself. Following
the path chosen by China is not a good which helps the society as a whole, and
does not lead to further goodness or understanding of goodness for women
themselves. Thus the internal goodness of a Chinese woman dictated to women, is
not morally correct, even as a path to strive for, because
it does not help society or women. Therefore although China has logically stated
women are equal in law, externally, this good is not followed due to internal
feelings of bias towards women being inferior to men; and thus, in practice are
found morally wanting (Ethics, Sterba j, 2000, p470)
“Gender inequality in the PRC is not so much ignored as
misunderstood. The PRC government has, since the early days of its rule, paid
much attention, in its ideology and policy making, to women’s subordinate
status.” (Ethics, Sterba j, 2000, p469)
For me the idea of striving to be good with its rewards and
future understanding of the core of morality is a good goal; that rewards do
have a place as Franklin states for those who strive harder, and that this is a
moral reward for being good. Macintyre states these intermediate goals can lead
us to a better understanding of morality and its core values of which I am in
agreement. Li though shows us that the definition of good, may not in actuality
be good, and for me this shows the dangers of assuming that a society’s members
and government understand what is really good for its members, and increases
the need for individuals to question the definition of good, both external, and
internal, for its members.