Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:57:20.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comment on MacIntyre

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

W. David Solomon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Article Commentary
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , Summer 1990 , pp. 369 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

This comment was written to be delivered to a large interdisciplinary audience on the occasion of Professor Maclntyre's inaugural lecture as McMahon/Hank Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame on 18 April 1990. I considered revising and lengthening it for publication, but decided rather to allow it to be published with only minor stylistic changes as part of the record of one of the most intellectually stimulating evenings of my life.

1. The rich and complex recent literature on the moral and political doctrines of liberalism makes clear how difficult it is to reach any kind of agreement on a precise characterization of liberalism. I will, as much as possible, avoid these issues, and intend to mean by liberalism what Maclntyre means by it. Later in my comment, however, I will suggest that something might be gained by departing both from Maclntyre's characterization of liberalism and the liberals own self-characterization.

2. Parfit, Derek, Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 453.Google Scholar

3. Ibid., p. 454.

4. They, of course, have appeared to many persons as much richer and more attractive than the Aristotelian-Thomist alternative, and as capable of inspiring loyalty and great deeds.