Historia de la ética

by Alasdair MacIntyre

In this classic work, Alasdair MacIntyre guides the reader through the history of moral philosophy from the Greeks to contemporary times. He emphasizes the importance of a historical context to moral concepts and ideas. MacIntyre illustrates the relevance of philosophical queries on moral concepts enabling the reader to understand the importance of a historical account of ethics.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Academic, Politics, 20th Century, Audiobook

290 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1966

About the author

Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre was a British-American philosopher who contributed to moral and political philosophy as well as history of philosophy and theology. MacIntyre's After Virtue (1981) is one of the most important works of Anglophone moral and political philosophy in the 20th century. He was senior research fellow at the Centre for Contemporary Aristotelian Studies in Ethics and Politics (CASEP) at London Metropolitan University, emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and permanent senior distinguished research fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture. During his lengthy academic career, he also taught at Brandeis University, Duke University, Vanderbilt University, and Boston University.

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken]

Review of Alasdair MacIntyre’s A Short History of Ethics

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 AM had not yet converted to Christianity and as a result he depended on much out-of-date and long-refuted German scholarship on Christianity.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.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here's a quick summary: "We are ever, and always, wrong about ethics. Our current model of ethics is wrong, but we won't know how wrong and in what ways until a later generation speaks up and explains to us in simple, unambiguous words how we messed everything up."

Really enjoyed this book!

[Alexander Frost · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whilst I agree with the reviewers below that this brilliant book can be quite dense at times, Alisdair does not read as if he is trying to be pompous or difficult. Unique amongst philosophical writters, I left with an overwhelming sense that that the subject merely deserves a degree of deferential depth and attention.

Aside from the fascinating insights into ethics through the ages, one of the most interesting aspects of this book is the relationship between changing social structures and the concept of 'good' or 'right' behaviour. Living within communities, we can not help but interpret such blanket concepts through the circumstances we inherit. MacIntyre clearly has strong views on this and, whilst he may at times generalise slightly, his real mastery lies in the connection of the abstract ethical to the daily grime of life.

[Matthias · Rating 5 out of 5]

Listened to this, which is not the ideal format - it is argumentatively dense and, to its credit, left me wanting to go back to each chapter more slowly in print, which I hope to do - but the audio version does have one thing going for it: a narrator with a thick Scottish accent who adopts goofy national accents for all direct quotes. Perhaps if the book were less Eurocentric one couldn't get away with this, but either way, a fun touch.

Anyway! If you're like most people, working a blue-collar job at the soda pop factory and raising your 2.5 kids, you read *After Virtue* and said "wow, that was some great rhetorical pyrotechnics, and swipes at the PMC, but what the fuck does it mean?" Well, the answer is in this book and the answer in this book is that error theory is true until we get to communism, when virtue ethics will be true again.

That's just the conclusion (insofar as I want to impose one); really what this is is a Marxist history of metaethics, with a focus on a very narrowly traditional sequence of philosophers until about 1800 or so, written with a lot of verve and close argumentation. It is not, as the title might suggest, a good introduction or overview or even meant as such (I believe one negative review here complained "there are better introductions to ethics" and I agree; there are better romance novels and histories of the Ottoman Empire, too.) Go read it, I certainly hope to for real.

[Alejandro Teruel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this to be a fascinating and very rewarding book -perhaps it fell into my hands with impeccable timing. I would not recommend this book if you have not had a shot at reading some Western moral philosophy classics such as Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and have some acquaintance with Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Bentham, and J. S. Mills. With this basic baggage you will be able to appreciate the original way in which MacIntyre sweeps across moral and political philosophy showing how moral values shift in meaning, depth and linkage. The chapters on Greek philosophy are superb especially in the way Plato and Aristotle are contrasted and compared.

The chapter is Christianity is very brief and thirty years after the first edition of this book, MacIntyre apologizes for its brevity and its incompleteness. However since I have yet to dip into medieval philosophy and I have yet to feel attracted by Christian philosophy, I was content to take away the importance of the Christian value of equality before God, as a key contribution to moral and political thought, and his explanation of how this idea is filtered through Puritanism in seventeenth century England, to influence Locke is fascinating.

The chapter on Luther, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Spinoza was interesting for its inclusion of Luther, its take on Machiavelli. And the adequacy of his treatment of Hobbes. I confess I remain baffled by what MacIntyre’s comments on Spinoza -but this may well be because I have yet to read Spinoza.

The two chapters comparing and contrasting British and French moral philosophy in the eighteenth century is eye-opening and it is in this kind of comparative analysis that MacIntyre excels in this book.

There is a chapter on Kant, but alas, I am still very shaky on Kant and this book did not help get a firmer grip on him. I enjoyed his treatment of Marx and was quite drawn to his observations on the -for me- still unintelligible Hegel.

While interesting, I felt the author somewhat lost his bearings in the chapter Kierkegaard to Nietszche, which does not seem to be in the main line of the book.

In the following chapter, after dealing very well with Bentham and Mills, I felt the history unraveling and becoming far too biased towards British moral philosophy. I found the final chapter on Modern Moral Philosophy particularly unappealing and limited -in a book on twentieth century moral philosophy, surely moral philosophy cannot be considered to have been viewed only from an analytic perspective. Focusing on the language and logic of moral arguments, and limiting moral philosophy to Moore, his immediate heirs (Prichard, Ross, Carritt), a skimpy paragraph on Dewey, Stevenson, and Hare is quite parochial at best. What happened to Marxism or Existentialism in the twentieth century? Can you really consider that there were no twentieth century moral philosphers from, say France, Spain, Germany, Eastern Europe or Scandinavia worth mentioning? Arendt, Aron, Benjamin, Camus, Cassirer, Sartre, Hayek, Cioran, Ellul, Foucault, Fromm, Jaspers, Lukacs, Luxemburg, Ortega y Gasset, Piaget, Popper, Rawls, Weil -anyone? The first edition of the book was written in 1966 and the second edition, published thirty years later, appears to me to have barely carried out some minor corrections. So while it is unreasonable to expect the book to touch on, for example, environmental ethics, bioethics, or cyberethics, surely MacIntyre could have at least pointed to a connection between moral philosophy and the development of science and technology? Or the ethics of Pacifism or the Human Rights movement?

In spite of my caveats, Alasdair MacIntyre's book still makes for fascinating, instructive and insightful reading.

[Richard Newton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an intelligent and useful overview of the development of ethics, or at least the western approach to ethics. It balances well the needs of a history of ideas and providing some useful explorations philosophy itself. Not too difficult to read without a deep philosophical education, although some familiarity with certain concepts is helpful.

2019 update: I’ve just re-read this prior to starting my masters. It still stands up well as a good coverage of ethics. It has a few flaws, but many of these MacIntyre acknowledges in the updated preface to the edition I have. At times it seems a little unclear if it is meant as a book about the history of ideas or a philosophy text book. But then again MacIntyre seems to hold that these are heavily interlinked when it comes to ethics. One other point, this was published in 1967 - and since then there has been a lot of new ideas in ethics, so it is not bang up to date. Nevertheless, a good short history of ethics.

[Peyton Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Macintyre wrote this before he adopted the Thomism which would make him famous. However, while reading this book it quickly becomes quite apparent why he became a Thomist. Many of the reoccurring issues in moral philosophy which Macintyre points to are issues which his subsequent work would seek to address. || I’m rating this book very well, but I also totally understand if you wouldn’t. This book has no clear audience, it’s focus on analysis rather than exposition makes it too advance for an introductory book, yet at points it becomes clear that that’s what he intended. Macintyre spends upwards of 60% of his time on analysis & critique, if you don’t know the thinker in question, you’ll likely be confused. I read this both after and along side reading Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, which really helped me appreciate the brilliance of this work. For me, 5/5

[Marek Pawlowski · Rating 2 out of 5]

I remember I was amazed how well-written this book was when I was studying philosophy. But now honestly, I can say this book did not age well and there are now a lot better introductions to ethics. This book is just chaotic in description, full of unnecessary and rather dull comments. I have just read it after a few years to refresh some basics, but I think I will have to search for something else.

[Kuszma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aki a szépirodalom emlőin nevelkedett, annak meglehetősen szokatlan, amikor egy mondaton belül háromszor találkozik a „feltenni és megválaszolni” szókapcsolattal, de hát ilyen a filozófia nyelve, mit tegyünk. Elolvas az ember tizenvalahány oldalt, és az a benyomása, hogy ő ezt négy egyszerű vagy két bővített mondatban össze tudná foglalni. Ilyenkor alapesetben hajlamos vagyok kilőni a szerzőt magamban a Holdba – de ha a neve mellett látom a dr, prof., emeritus, exelenciás uram stb. jelzőket, akkor nyilván visszaveszek magamból, győz a tekintélytisztelet, és inkább elolvasom még egyszer, hátha elsiklottam valami fölött. És hát valóban: bele lehet szokni. Bár az elején nagyon kellett gyürkőznöm, de a közepétől helyenként kifejezetten élveztem. Mondjuk azért továbbra is túlzásnak érzem a hátsó borító jelzőjét, miszerint „olvasmányos” – no persze, Hegelhez képest, mondjuk.

A cím, az kicsit becsapós. Némiképp arra számítottam, hogy MacIntyre egy történelmi értelemben vett tárlatvezetésen végigvisz engem az etikatörténeten. Nem, sajnos és szerencsére nem, mert a szerző szemmel láthatóan túl erős személyiség ahhoz, hogy szolgaian foglalja össze a morálfilozófia fordulatos eseményeit, szimpla kézikönyvet alkotva, inkább egy nagyon sűrű, nagyon szubjektív, nagyon saját konstrukcióban tárja elénk őket. Homéroszon kezdi a sort, akinél hipotézise szerint az erkölcsi formulák (pl. „jó”) még egy tradicionális társadalmon belüli szerephez voltak rögzítve, majd átvágtat (hmmm…. vágtat…) a három sztáron, Szókratészen, Platónon és Arisztotelészen, bemutatva, a tradicionális berendezkedésből a poliszba való átmenet során hogyan veszítették el a kapcsolatot ezek a kifejezések az eredeti gyökerükkel, és miképpen vált szükségessé újradefiniálásuk*. (Ez a folyamat – változó intenzitással – koronként megismétlődik.) Ezután egy huszárvágással máris Machiavellinél és Luthernél találjuk magunkat – utóbbi új szintre helyezte a morálfilozófiát azzal, hogy teológiájában megkerülhetetlenül ott van az individuum fogalma, hiszen, mint rámutat, ha meghalsz, te vagy az, aki meghal, és senki más nem teheti meg ezt helyetted. És innen haladunk tovább Hobbes-on, Kanton, Hegelen, Nietzshén át a jelenkorig – megkímélek mindenkit, köztük magamat is, a folyamat részletes taglalásától, már így is monstre értékelés ez. A kulcsszavak úgyis adottak. MacIntyre ezt az egész utat két állandó ingadozásra fókuszálva mutatja be. Az egyik ingadozás aközött zajlik, hogy az individuum saját erkölcseit, vagy a közösség erkölcseit tekintjük prioritásnak (értsünk közösség alatt egy, a közösséget joggal-jogtalanul képviselő uralkodó osztályt, vagy akár a polgárok túlnyomó többségét, mint a demokráciákban). A második pedig aközött, hogy a morál visszavezethető-e valamiféle objektív és általánosítható szabályra, vagy pedig szükségszerűen az egyén szubjektív és változó individualitásában gyökerezik. (Vagy, megkerülve az egész kérdést: valamiféle abszolútumhoz kötjük. Ilyenkor kvázi Isten válik az etikai törvények aranyfedezetévé.) MacIntyre világában az etika ezek között az ellentétes elképzelések között ingázik, és alighanem továbbra is ezek gondoskodnak majd a morál dinamikájáról.

MacIntyre egész művére jellemző, hogy szigorral fordul a filozófus-életművek felé. Azonban ezt a szigort magára is kiterjeszti, alapos előszavában ugyanis keményen nekimegy saját gondolatainak, mert Az etika rövid történeté-ben szinte csak odavetőlegesen foglalkozott a keresztény filozófiával**, és nem figyelt fel annak mélységeire. (Igaz, ami igaz: amíg a görögökre csaknem 130 oldalt szánt, addig a görögöktől Lutherig terjedő időszakot tizedannyi terjedelemben taglalta.) Mindezzel együtt ez egy komplett, kész szöveg, benne egy nagyon tekintélyes elmeépítménnyel, ami csábít a vitára, az ellenkezésre, de így van ez jól: maga sem állítja, hogy örök és változtathatatlan igazságokra bukkant rá. Áthatja az a gondolat, hogy az etikai vizsgálódások csak bizonyos társadalmi-történelmi kontextusban érthetőek – amennyiben elszakadunk ettől, lágy nyáresti elmetornává satnyulnak. Rugalmas szöveg, formálódik az ember fejében, mint a gyurma, ha az ember hajlandó dolgozni vele.

* Azt hiszitek, ez egy túl hosszú mondat? Akkor nektek MacIntyre sem fog tetszeni.
** Amúgy is volt egy olyan érzésem, hogy a „korai MacIntyre” meglehetősen lekezelő a keresztény spirituális filozófiával szemben. Meglátásom szerint ez három vélekedésére vezethető vissza:
1.) Ha a kereszténység az erkölcsi normák végső okait Istennek tulajdonítja, voltaképpen kiemeli azokat a tudományos vizsgálódás tárgyköréből, és a spiritualitáshoz sorolja őket. Ebben az esetben pedig a tudós nem tehet mást, mint széttárja a kezét: mert ő itt már semmit sem tehet. (Arról nem is beszélve, hogy ebben az esetben azok, akik Isten létében kételkednek, potenciálisan kikerülnek az etika hatálya alól.)
2.) A radikális kereszténység hajlamos az önszeretetet és az önzetlenséget ellentétes fogalmakként leírni, amik kibékíthetetlenek, de MacIntyre szerint ez bűnös leegyszerűsítés. Hiszen egy önzetlen cselekedet örömet okozhat nekünk, amiből következik, hogy akár az önszeretetből is származhat. Ez a leegyszerűsítés pedig távolabb visz minket a morál valódi gyökereinek megértésétől – már ha azok megérthetőek egyáltalán.
3.) Az eredendő bűn fogalmával olyan érvet adott egyes konzervatív filozófusok kezébe, amit azok felhasználhatnak bizonyos pozitív változások visszautasítására – hiszen ha az ember eredendően bűnös, akkor felesleges, sőt nevetséges bármiféle társadalomjobbításban hinni.
Természetesen ezekkel a megállapításokkal bőven lehet vitatkozni (mint ahogy azzal is, hogy MacIntyre mennyire szilárdan állítja őket), ám a disputát megnehezítheti, hogy ha a teológia szókészletével szállnak szembe egy filozófiai szókészlettel, mert ez óhatatlanul egymás mellett elbeszéléshez vezet.

[Duncan Swann · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very solid, entertaining and not-too-dense overview of the evolution of ethics and morality through the Western world. I liked how Alasdair provided a pro and a con to every philosopher - no on is perfect. That said I also enjoyed the fact he clearly thought less of certain men's school of thought. Can recommend to anyone wanting an overview of philosophy since Socrates.

[Rob Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is something other and more than simply a short introduction to the history of ethics. (Although one wonders at the expectations of other reviewers complaining of its length - the history Western ethics condensed down to 269 pages is incredibly short.) In addition to providing an overview of moral philosophy from the ancient Greece to the middle of the twentieth-century, Alasdair MacIntyre puts forward a number of compelling theses about the nature of moral philosophy, the patterns it tends to follow, significant moments in its development, and how we got to our present predicament. Most notable for me was the changing relationship between concepts like happiness, morality, and their meaning, and the degree of unity or disunity in the social order from which moral philosophy proceeds.

Many of these theses set the agenda for MacIntyre's later work, and throughout one gains an insight into many of the later positions and arguments MacIntyre adopts in his more well-known works, particularly 'After Virtue' and 'Whose Justice? Which Rationality?' This turned out to be quite useful, because here MacIntyre is often clearer and willing to go into greater explanatory depth for many of his positions than he is in his later work, notably the critique of natural rights, social contract theory, the relationship between morality, society and language, and more.

MacIntyre is for the most part admirably clear and compelling in his exposition and analysis of complex philosophical positions and moments in the history of moral philosophy, showing the problems each were responded to and their corresponding social background and the way each of these has tended to effect the arguments they propose. However, as he acknowledges in the preface, the books is very lop-sided towards Greek (109 pages) and modern moral philosophy (148 pages), with very little discussion of medieval ethics (10 pages on Christianity). The conclusion is also, as MacIntyre acknowledges, lacklustre and perhaps self-defeating, ending with the need for each of us to choose between competing rival moral traditions--a scenario which has been in part brought about by the rise of individualist philosophy--but a solution which seems also to presuppose and further contribute to the central tenets of the individualist moral traditions.

That said, this book will likely prove valuable to newcomers to moral and political philosophy, those interested in the history of moral philosophy, those interested in the philosophy of history, and those interested in the work of Alasdair MacIntyre more generally.

[Adam Shields · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: A history of how the concept of ethics (or moral philosophy) has been developed over time in western culture.

In my long term reading project about discernment, I have been gradually moving toward reading about ethics. I do not think that discernment is primarily about ethical action, but at some point, when you think about discernment the idea of what "is right" has to come up.

A couple of years ago, early in this project, I read Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue, which tried to show that virtue and ethics were actually a cultural good and not simply a repressive feature of an older society. After Virtue was originally published in 1981 and I initially assumed that Short History of Ethics was a later book, but it was first published 15 years earlier. It is not a part of the Very Short Introduction series (as I assumed), but written as an introductory textbook for a college level philosophy/ethics class. While it is understandable, it is assumes a working familiarity of philosophy and its history. And as I have said many times before, philosophy is not a strong suit of mine, but I could follow the basic thread.

I picked up A Short History of Ethics as an audiobook because it was on sale, but that was not a great format. As with many book, audio helps me finish, but it is a hard format for deep reading because it is harder to re-read sections to understand the better. This audiobook was even worse because the narrator was Scottish with a strong accent. I have been reluctant to pick this edition up on previous sales because the narrator had awful reviews. I did get used to the narration, but if there were any other option, I would recommend you pick another option.

I think the strongest sections were the early chapters on Greek philosophy and the ending sections on modern ethics. The first eight chapters were introduction and background on Greek philosophy. While they were helpful to frame the later discussion on what ethics were, it did feel like he was never going to finish discussing Greek philosophy. (He does talk about the fact that there are many eastern ethical systems that are not based on Greek philosophy, but that it was outside the scope of the book.)

It was not until about the midpoint of the book that Christianity was introduced. Prior to that, it is primarily describing what ethical systems were as a base point and the different approaches that Greek philosophical systems used to approach ethics. But with the introduction of Christianity there is a real conflict between cultural systems around ethics. It is not as if there was no conflict about ethics prior, but the along with the introduction of Christianity, there was also a much greater cultural interaction between groups as transportation and trade technology increase at the same time. The last half of the book is really a slow rise of individualism as a natural result of the very idea of ethical conflict and the increasing relevance of a personal God which gives rise to personal ethical system.

At one point in a larger discussion of natural law, MacIntyre essentially says that either there is some form of natural law where the ethical system comes from outside, or ethics in some way are a purely subjective system of the individual who has to evaluate everything with an internal rationality. That is obviously a hyperbolic dichotomy, but there is a real point there. I am pretty strongly against natural law systems of ethics because of the history of misuse, but I also am reluctant to completely dismiss all natural law influence.

The real value of the book for me was the discussion of how ethics changes over time. Not just the evaluative methods, but what "a good" is and even what the purpose of society and action is. Discernment without any sense of how our culture works and how we are influenced in our understanding of what "being Christlike" is about can't really happen without some reflection on our understanding of ethics. There are certainly other books that provide similar lenses. The Economics of Good and Evil or Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes or let alone books that just look at comparative Christianity as a narrower scope get at different aspects.

I am increasingly convinced that Ignatius' rules of discernment arose when it did, was not just because there was a need for personal discernment along with the rise of the Enlightenment, but also that the rise of the Enlightenment and the movement of mystical Christianity through books like The Cloud of Unknowing and The Interior Castle were modeling a type of faith that requires interiority and reflection. But you can't separate the rise of the Enlightenment from the increased interaction with diverse cultures that caused people to reflect on their own culture. There was, of course, a particular problem with the chauvinism and bias of western Christian cultures that assumed that they were not just right, but divinely chosen to dominate, but at the same time, there was pretty much always a prophetic thread that challenged the dominate culture in their dominance.

I know I missed more than I understood with A Short History of Ethics, but I did get something out of this reading and it did help me reflect on the tension that is inherent in discernment between collective and individualistic values. We need both and any movement to minimize either collective or individual discernment minimizes the ways that God has traditionally spoken to us. In a similar way, we can't reject the concept of objective truth nor assume that it is possible for use to get some glimmer of truth in light of special or general revelation. And we can't ignore the ways that prior generations used their understanding of truth to create and/or justify harm. We have access to a wide scope of history, the comparative understanding of knowledge and culture over time and the analytic tools to know that everything should be complicated.

This post was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/history-of-ethics/

[Austin]

"Alasdair MacIntyre has become, over the last forty or so years, one of the most significant living philosophers. With respect to the field of ethics, this is doubly true. His work After Virtue has been monumental in influencing the field, helping bring Virtue Ethics back to the modern discourse as a viable and respected position.

Coincidentally, he is also my favorite philosopher, as well as one of my favorite authors. I was first introduced to him through a blog post which detailed Edward Feser’s journey from Atheist to Theist, and ultimately Catholic. The book After Virtue was credited as having been a large stepping stone in that process.

I have grown to love MacIntyre’s style of blending history and philosophy, to show the way in which the two reflect one another; how ideas or beliefs, and culturally rooted practices go hand in hand. I picked up A Short History of Ethics recently, hoping to get a deeper and fuller understanding of ethical debates in the present, by understanding the history behind it all. It did not disappoint."

[Visit here for the entire review: http://www.historyofideas.net/2018/03... ]

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

He is truly brilliant, and his understanding of ethics throughout history is unprecedented. BUT, this book is supposed to be a short history of ethics, one a non-specialist should be able to pick up and it doesn't live up to that. It's short, but it's quite cumbersome at moments. That being said, he really includes everything through Western civ on moral theory. From pre-Socrates up to current (late 20th c.) ethical thought. You can read short pieces about Hume, Nietzsche, Aristotle, Aquinas, etc., etc. It's a good quick reference for someone who knows ethics, but needs to reference the history now and then. But, I'm sure you can find something a little simpler that lays it out better. I'd buy the 'Idiot's Guide to Ethical Philosophy' first if you're a newcomer to philosophy or the history of ethics.

[Russell Freeman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a helpful survey of moral philosophy beginning with Homer and ending with the prescriptivism of R. M. Hare. MacIntyre's history is never simply summary. He continuously critiques the philosophers whose views he provides. For some, this constant analysis will be grating, but it forced me to engage consistently with MacIntyre. His diagnosis of "modern moral philosophy" was a fitting culmination to the book. In other words, the book truly ends and doesn't simply stop with the most recent (as of 1966) philosopher. MacIntyre wrote this book before he was an Aristotelian or Thomist, but one can see how he ended up as an Aristotelian (per his critique of individualism). All in all, this book is a wonderful preface to After Virtue.

[A. B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of the history of ethics, and how different concepts came into the moral consciousness of Western Civilization at different time periods, in response to socio-cultural changes. Although functionally the history is based on individual thinkers from the Homeric Age and Plato, to the Renaissance to modern Western Europe- there are numerous chapters in between that trace the rise and development of new concepts; from Christian universalism to Renaissance individualism, to the Kantian break between duty and happiness, and to the Hegelian realization of the social relativism of ethics. The chapters on modern English philosophy (from the 18th century to the 1960s) tended to get a bit tedious in its arguments, but that could just be chalked up to my disillusionment with these philosophers. The section on Greek ethics was interesting from the Homeric conceptions of the 'good' to Aristotle. The unity of virtue and happiness in the Aristotelian conception of Eudaimonia was a remarkable contrast to the modern phenomenon; as well as the connections between morals and politics (POLITIKOS), in addition to the change from historically defined caste-based roles to the Christian Individual before God.

The Hellenistic world leads to the individual being removed from the environment of his polis, and seeking to define himself as per the norms of the cosmos. Various doctrines of avoiding hope, and hurt by limiting our desires come to the fore in this weary age. Further on, conventional religion became, for the Romans, a mere device to maintain social cohesion; and the spiritual and intellectual needs were taken over by these various philosophical creeds.

The author deals with Christianity in a very short chapter, the main unity of the various divergences in the tradition being to prefer obedience to God. He also notes how, by making God abstract, Christian faith made God more unreal- perhaps thus directly paving the way for atheism.

The new values that were inducted into the society of the 17th century were many. The doctrine of equality dawned, as did the puritan values of economic attainment that would pave the way for modern capitalism. The paradigm of the individual became dominant, and the concepts of natural rights and universal suffrage arose. State power now needed to be legitimized, the social contract theories arose and liberty became an exceedingly important right. The importance of the doctrine of natural right was that state control now came to be held to be dependent on the people, and gave a firm stance on the rights of persons beyond the purview of a nation-state. Private property too began to be of utmost importance, and egoistic individualism became the dominant view in moral philosophy.

The author also describes the various developments of import from Rousseau to Nietzsche, as well as modern moral philosophy from the British Utilitarians and Godwin, to contemporary (for the 1960s) analytic philosophy. There is a noted lack of 20th century continental philosophy except for a mention of Sartre on the very last page, with an understandably Anglophone bias.

The author concludes by summarizing the historical changes in philosophy which have occurred; and remarks how the study of history lets us understand how philosophers and ethicists across the centuries have been discussing various different issues in response to the society of their times; and not a trans-temporal universal debate. Due to the rise of individualism in our time, many conflicting ethics and moralities abound, fully dependent on our upbringing and choice. Hence, we can no longer appeal to a pre-set 'human nature', nor can ethical debate ever be expected to resolve issues in a no longer cohesive society. Such shared values, although possible in the world of the Greek polis- can no longer give us meaning in a society where the individual is their own lawgiver, for better or for worse.

[Mir Bal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Det sägs att det inte går att vara neutral på ett skenande tåg. Och vist stämmer det. Varje historia, varje berättelse, varje narrativ ovh varje översikt utgår från en bestämd position. En utsiktspunkt. Allt sedan 1945 har Bertrand Russells historia över filosofin med dess förmenta neutralitet varit den måttstock mot vilket alla andra liknande projekt har mätts. Och genom dess förmenta neutralitet och dess totala ovilja att ägs försöka förstå de tänkare som Sir Russell inte tycker om har den nog gjort mer skada än nytta. Det är mot denna som MacIntyres numera moderna klassiker blir ett så mycket mer storslaget värk. Även om Russell aldrig nämns vid namn så är det tydligt att den bok vi har framför oss har som mål att göra om och göra rätt.

Då det har varit gängse att allt sedan Russells tid se moralfilosofin i ljuset av den whiggish historiografin och då därför många av de klassiska moralfilosofiska begreppen blir totalt oförståeliga, och sammanhangslösas är det uppfriskande att mötas av en historisk läsning av moralfilosofin. Det är uppenbart att författaren är en konservativ katolik, skolan i den Tomastiska traditionen. Det är lika uppenbart att han en gång varit marxist. Och att dessa två tanketraditionernas läsningar av historiska företeelser är tamast identiska. Han börjar med att gå igen den sociala och ekonomiska bassen, men även den lingvistiska som med nödvändighet springer ur denna. Visar på vilken typ av etiska och moraliska begrep som föddes ur dessa kontexter och hur totalt meningsöst det är att lyfta något av begreppen ur deras historiska kontext, vad det rör sig om är praktiker födda i ett samhälle. Praktiker som grundar sig i en materiel verklighet men som bli självgående system men självgående frågor, som utvecklas och sinna egna håll, återknyter till de samhällen där de formas, men som också omformar dem. Så väll Marx som gramsci hade varit stolta, och även gröna av avund av denna djupt materialistiska analys.

I urvalet av traditioner och tänkare finns det inget konstigt, och det som kanske är mest imponerade av allt, förutom den skaldiska kunskapen är hur MacIntyre lyckas få ner så mycket på så kort tid utan att göra det totalt obegripligt. Vist är texten tätt, och en får gå tillbaka och läsa, läsa om ibland. Men det finns inte de minsta spår av jargong. Varje begrep introduceras, förklara och contextualiser.

Det går inte att inta någon neutral ståndpunkt inom något fällt, något ämne, och moralfilosofin är inget undantag. MacIntyre bär sinna influenser ingraverade på överrocken. Han tycker om Aritotelse, men är inte det minsta okritisk, ogillar Platon, men förklarar varför denna var viktig och nästan nödvändig. Med några undantag, platon kanske bland de tydligaste så lyckas författaren hålla sig balanserad och nyanserad. Och för den som vill förstå och borttas med etik och moral, de eviga frågorna och förstå deras historia är detta en nödvändig bok. Om inte annat för att förstå hur vår samtid skapar våra idéer. Och hur idéerna skapar samtiden.

[Kaye Lundy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I will start by saying this: if you haven't read philosophy before or are looking to get into moral philosophy with this book, I would not recommend it. By philosophy standards, this is positively to the point. By human being standards, reading this book feels like a twelve-hour horror date with the most annoying person you know. Academics in general, and philosophers especially, have a nasty habit of using a lot of big words when one little one will do.

And before all y'all come at me with explanations involving "specificity" and "intended audience", I would argue that any text can be made readable and retain its complexity. Additionally, if I, a student of philosophy and a lover of history am not the intended audience, who is? Surely the other moral philosophy professors and academics already know all of this and don't need the refresher. And if I am a filthy casual too stupid to understand it, what of the people who haven't been exposed to categorical imperatives or prima facie duties? Thrown to the polysyllabic wolves.

Writing aside, the reason why I gave this book three stars rather than one is because I do actually think the content is interesting. In the popular imagination, morals are something you either have or don't, and they are an immutable criteria that only fails in certain absurd gray areas. Philosophy in general regards it (in my understanding) as a big fat can of worms (it is), the interaction with which leads to some significant infighting between otherwise rational and empathetic people (it does). However, MacIntyre points out that moral philosophy exists as a historical entity, one which is impacted by the world around it. Moral trends of thought, just like all trends of thought, change depending on when and where they were conceived. Because of this, transplanting ancient moral guidelines into the modern day comes with issues, not just of environment, but of translation.

Overall, I liked the content, and it gave me pointers to my next reading, but the writing was atrocious. Read at your own risk, people.

[Jonathan Mckay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ships Passing in the Night

Between the adherents of rival moralities, there exists no court of appeal.

If you want to learn about ethics, don't start here. A Short History of Ethics is not a history in the sense that it tells the story about the interconnection of events in western civilization's ethical timeline. Instead, it is a chronological critique of different ethical viewpoints, with a thesis that most ethical systems do not effectively interact.

MacIntyre competently frames the differences between Aristotle and Plato, I'm not sure if this was the only section I felt comfortable with because the writing was lucid or because I already read the source material. Socrates: Virtue and knowledge are the same. No-one errs willingly that is if men do wrong it is an intellectual error not moral weakness that is the cause. And this, contrary to what Aristotle points out is opposite to what ordinary men take to be obvious experience.

Christianity is mentioned almost in passing, and by the time we get to renaissance thinking, the author critiques of ethical positions seemingly out of the void. Other than Russel's A History of Western Philosophy, this is my first exposure to many of these authors, and frankly I'd rather get a firm understanding of each philosopher's position before embarking on criticism.

For Voltaire: On moral questions in general, the enlightenment critique is that men behave irrationally, and the recipe for social improvement is that henceforward, men should behave rationally. [...] It is with relief that one turns from this relief of mediocrity to the passion of Rousseau.

For Kant: The doctrine of a categorical imperative provides me with a doctrine for rejecting proposed maxims, it does not tell me whence I am to derive the maxims which first provide the need for a test, thus Kantian doctrine is parasitic on some already existing morality.

On Modern Philosophy: In our society, the acids of individualism have for four centuries eaten into our moral structures.

Perhaps this strategy is a reasonable tack for a more advanced ethics reader, but for a novice reader like me, it does a disservice.

By the time we got to the chapter Kierkegaard to Nietzsche I was lost. In trying to prove different ethical frameworks mutually incomprehensible, he just painted some as incomprehensible to me.



71st book of 2022.

Quotes I liked:
Those who wish to separate politics from morals, will never understand either. Rousseau

Politics ought be adujusted not to human reasonsings, but to human nature, of which the human reason is but a part, and by no means the greatest part. This is not just a doctrine about politics, but about the moral life in general.

[Robert Boissy · Rating 3 out of 5]

As with so many philosophy books, you can strain and work through the thoughts, and treat the text honestly, and still come out the other side wondering if anything has been said, much less proved. I enjoy trying once in a while, and it is fun to take notes using the Greek lettering, and consider the legacy of Plato and Aristotle. We had to start somewhere, and it is fascinating where we started. Reading MacIntyre while reading Emily Wilson's translation of The Illiad transports a person. I can imagine friends of mine thinking "for gosh sake, lighten up!" And I will. But going deep is also entertaining sometimes. [By the way, I did not read the whole thing. Several opening chapters and the closing chapter were enough. I was reading the 2nd edition. Little changed since the first edition in the 1960's, though the author's intro gives a lot of credit to his critics for picking apart some of his reading of yet other philosophers.] I don't know if this is meaningful, but who would imagine being faced with the question "What is good?" in a book of moral philosophy like this one from MacIntyre and also in a just released title by R. F. Kuang - Katabasis - which follows two doctoral students from Cambridge on their voyage across the planes of Hell? I mean, "What is good?" in a 1960's academic tome and in a 2025 fiction bestseller? Some questions appear not to get old. The question of how I choose the books that I read in overlapping sessions is also a bit odd, but it shows that the ability to draw associations across diverse readings can be fun by itself.

[Brian Keyes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three stars is perhaps unfair to the actual quality of the book, but as Kierkegaard might appreciate, it's a choice I'm ultimately making based on my enjoyment of it. It's clear that MacIntyre has an incredible depth and breadth of knowledge of philosophy and its history, but his writing makes it very difficult to understand that history. I would wager probably 20% of the total words in the book could have been cut for conciseness (as seems to be often the case, good academics are rarely good writers for laypeople) while that same word total could have been added back in to better elaborate the numerous people and ideas present. The book covers so much ground in such a short amount that MacIntyre assumes the reader had at least a passing understanding, if not much more, of many of the names and the ideas they represent he casually throws in every other graph. As someone who picked up this book to try and start an introduction to philosophy, I found much of it overwhelming. Perhaps a medium history of ethics would have served the common audience better.

[Nya · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars:

Take a shot every time you see a word you swear he took out of a thesaurus. You’ll get alcohol poisoning.

PROS:
Good general overview of philosophy. This was used as a guide for my university ethics class.
Maclntyre knows how to construct arguments and consider them from multiple angles.
Loved the section about social context it was definitely the most memorable part of the book.
-In the second edition he does admit and seem to have grown.

CONS:
-Language difficult to understand for philosophy beginners or anyone not used to such complex texts. The flowery language didn’t help either. Take a shot every time you see a word you swear he took out of a thesaurus. You’ll get alcohol poisoning.
-Maclntyre has a tendency to put his own beliefs into there, him being a Neo-Aristotelian becomes kinda obvious. Heck he even says it in like subtext.

Worth a read but like it might induce a migraine.

[OSCAR · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nunca pensé que un libro de historia de algo tan complejo como la ética pudiera ser tan interesante.

A pesar de que la primera parte resulta pesada, sobre todo porque se debe contar con un estudio más profundo del contexto en el cual el pensamiento ético de los griegos se desarrolló, conforme pasan las páginas, uno se va acercando a una comprensión del fenómeno ético que le es más común a uno, y al final terminas en poco tiempo la parte final del libro.

La capacidad que tuvo el autor para explicar las visiones éticas de cada uno de los pensadores que seleccionó es magnífica y está finamente aderezada con una serie de críticas que tanto Alasdair como otros críticos hacen a las posturas éticas de los diversos filósofos. Al final cuentas con un cuadro completo del recorrer del pensamiento ético occidental en pocas páginas. ¡Sensacional!

[Kevin Linton · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Greek words without English transliterations make it impossible to know if you're coming across the same word again, a slightly modified version, or a completely new word. Perhaps this is my fault for not knowing how to read Greek... The book contains some interesting snippets at time but parts of it seem to be randomly throw into a book in which MacIntyre is cramming information into relatively few pages with seemingly no contextual link between paragraphs. When I go through it at university and have the luxury of a professor to expand beyond the book or when I have a greater understanding of the history of ethics, this book may prove to be better than I currently think. It is definitely not for someone who has not already studied the history of ethics in any significant depth and thus seems slightly self-defeating.

[Fabio Almeida · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book absolutely extraodinary! The author starts in antient Greece and comes throughout the ages to modernity in the evaluation of Ethics in different societies and conditions. How each era would add to the moral analysis with contibutions both to the semantics of its vocabulary and to the development of its thought. The narrative is fluid and interesting. The analysis are both deep and serene. Recognition of different schools of thought is provided and in accordance with the complexity of the subject, but it does not prevent the author to imprint his personal opinions and approach to theme, that culminates in a coherent whole in the conclusion. It was well worth reading it.

[Josh Majeski · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very long and difficult read, but we'll worth it. MacIntyre expertly leads the reader through the ages, following the words, thoughts and context of ideas of ethics through thousands of years. He weaves a story of Moral Philosophy from beginning to wnd, dissects language and its use, and abuses sentence structure in a way that ought to be punishable by law. But besides his exercise in confusing phasing and punctuation I thoroughly enjoyed this book and look forward to indulging in more of his writings.

[Ethan Fortes · Rating 4 out of 5]

How did the philosophy of ethics come into play and develop over the ages across varied cultures and lifestyles?
This is the question that MacIntyre answers in this heavy-loaded book that requires a lot of attention and focus to understand... MacIntyre does his best to explain the history of ethics in simple language while also taking the reader to the root words of certain common terms in ethics like good, virtue, vice, bad, etc. A must read for students in philosophy and those interested in studying the history of ethics....

[Juan de Dios Reyes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Muy bueno. Lo cierto es que hace un "paseo" por el concepto de "bueno" y "deber ser" desde la antigüedad (Grecia) hasta los tiempos modernos deteniéndose en los autores más importantes. Haciendo un análisis crítico tal que, no sólo nos muestra su erudición -sin presunción- sino que nos enseña a pensar.
Claramente es un libro que debemos leer con mucha atención, y más de una vez, para entenderlo en su totalidad. A pesar de lo que acabo de decir, es fácil de leer pues va directo al punto sin mayor retórica ni complejidad de conceptos.

[Idoru · Rating 3 out of 5]

This should really be called 'A Short History of Western Ethics' or more accurately, 'A Short History of Ethics as Propounded by White Western Men'. Also, it's not really a history, more a very acerbic takedown of theorists from Plato to the 20th century. I mean, I'm not saying I disagree, but oh to have that kind of self-assurance (or should that be arrogance?)

Of course, calling it a history means MacIntyre doesn't have put forth his own theory of moral philosophy, which I guess wouldn't have been half so much fun.

[Siamak Attarian · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the first half of the book (anytime before 1600 ), the ideas that are discussed sounded a bit unclear to me but the more it proceeded into the later centuries it got more understandable. I think one might need a little bit of side knowledge about ethics or philosophy in general to understand what's happening in this book.
This is also written around 60 years ago so it doesn't cover recent topics.
Overall I find it a good quick review on the history of ethics.