September 1990By Philip E. Devine
Philip E. Devine is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Providence College in Rhode Island, and the author of Relativism, Nihilism, and God. His The Ethics of Homicide has just been reprinted in paperback.
Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry. By Alasdair MacIntyre. University of Notre Dame Press. 236 pages. $24.95.
One of the most frustrating features of Alasdair MacIntyres writing until now has been its combination of brilliant critiques of other positions with fragmentary and apparently incoherent positive proposals. After Virtue asked us to become followers of both Trotsky and St. Benedict, while at the same time somehow managing to stay sane. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? concluded by commending Thomism in a paragraph, after arguing at length that the case for one tradition against the others must be made in detail. MacIntyres Gifford Lectures published as Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry are his attempt to remedy the unsettled state in which his earlier writings have left his readers.
MacIntyre defends what he calls Thomism represented by the encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879) against two other traditions: that of the Enlightenment, and that of the subversive insight represented by Nietzsches Genealogy of Morals. (Genealogy thus becomes MacIntyres word for the tradition founded by Nietzsche.)
MacIntyre claims to do on behalf of St. Thomas what St. Thomas himself did with the Augustinian and Aristotelian traditions that contended in the University of Paris of his day. He claims, that is, to be able to explain and resolve the epistemological crises generated by the Enlightenment and the genealogical tradition, and to answer the criticism each of these traditions might make of Thomism. The outcome of such an argument, if successfully stated, would make a very strong claim on our assent. (Still: Jewish, Islamic, and non-Western traditions need to be taken into account. And some showing that MacIntyres approach yields persuasive resolution of concrete moral issues is also required.)
In a spirit of holism, MacIntyre is hostile to the distinction between philosophy and theology, for which many people have found authority in the writing of St. Thomas. He attributes to St. Thomas a conception of philosophy as a craft, in which the apprentice must learn from his master the distinction between real and apparent goods before being able to give reasons for such judgments. Authority and tradition are consequently as important for philosophy as for theology. Even interventions by authority to correct the results of philosophical inquiry are in order, as a check on the pride of philosophers. He reads St. Thomass metaphysics of being as an implication of the distinction between truth and warranted assertibility necessary to the project of synthesizing contending traditions. It should be clear that MacIntyres Thomism fits the text of St. Thomas somewhat loosely.
From the perspective of Thomism so understood, MacIntyre proceeds to criticize both the Enlightenment and the genealogical tradition. He sees the morality of the Enlightenment as a fragmentary survival of the cohesive way of life once sustained by Catholic Christianity. The genealogists, MacIntyre argues, lack a way of sustaining their own identity behind the masks they assume in order to express their subversive insights. Thomism, by contrast, is able to understand personal identity in terms of bodily continuity and accountability to a visible Church. In his diagnosis of the problems of the contemporary university, MacIntyre, virtually alone among cultural conservatives, refuses to engage in the ritualistic 60s-bashing which by now has become a substitute for thought, even in writers, like Allan Bloom, who know better. The rebels of the 1960s were right, MacIntyre points out, and their victorious opponents wrong, on one crucial academic point: The university of the 1950s had lost its credibility as a place in which inquiries concerning the good life for human beings in society could be carried on with any effect. And the reading of the Great Books, however necessary to a sound education, does not provide a resolution of the cultural conflicts we have inherited, for these conflicts include conflict about the proper way of reading texts.
MacIntyre argues for the replacement of the regime of constrained agreement characteristic of the pre-liberal university, and the regime of unconstrained agreement toward which the liberal university vainly aspires, with a regime of constrained disagreement. He rejects both the idea that inquiry can proceed without agreed upon presuppositions, and the exclusion of alien traditions which his critique of liberalism might be taken to imply. He appears to support a collegiate structure, in which scholars pursue their research programs among like-minded others during the bulk of their professional lives, but in which representatives of the various colleges regularly come together for purposes of disputation. Thus we may expect Thomist colleges, genealogical colleges, and colleges representing the tradition of the Enlightenment to co-exist within a consortium or university that makes regular provision for intercollegiate dialogue.
MacIntyre would be the last to expect his work to put an end to controversy. I here offer three criticisms, one on behalf of the Enlightenment, one on behalf of Nietzsche and his followers, and one on behalf of MacIntyre himself.
MacIntyre downplays those aspects of St. Thomass thought that support the Enlightenment project. But it is a direct consequence of St. Thomass philosophy that, say, atheists and Buddhists, as rational creatures made in the image of God, are able to know at least the most important parts of the natural law, ignorant though they may be of its metaphysical basis. And it is possible to call interests protected by the natural law natural rights without lapsing into the contemporary conception of rights as demands arising spontaneously and self-evidently from the shared consciousness of some vocal group.
As for the genealogists, it is easy to see their philosophy as the product of pride even an atheist like Bertrand Russell so argues in his History of Western Philosophy. Hence Russells remedy for pride a realist conception of truth and MacIntyres the accountability provided by a visible Church are both in order. But the genealogists reply is their claim to have discovered the will-to-power behind every known intellectual position, including those backed by claims to objective truth and those supported by appeal to or exercise of religious authority. An answer to Nietzsche requires a deeper foray into theology than MacIntyre is prepared to undertake.
Sometimes MacIntyre appears to take the view that the progress of human thought ended with St. Thomas, and that its subsequent history is merely that of sin and error. But in fact MacIntyres reading of St. Thomas is an idiosyncratic one and his Thomism a mask. On MacIntyres own principles, his position is intelligible only as developed in dialectical opposition to views of which St. Thomas was necessarily unaware. Also, MacIntyres philosophy owes a great deal to the unacknowledged influence of Hegel. What place is there for a person such as MacIntyre in the university as he conceives it? Not in one of its constituent colleges, whose loyalty oaths he could not take in good faith. Not in some sort of intercollegiate appointment, since MacIntyres holism makes it difficult to fragment a persons position in the required way. If such a person is to escape the condition of homelessness to which MacIntyres proposed constitution for the Republic of Letters would otherwise consign him, he will need to become its ruler.