The previous post summarized the outlines of the course of the arguments made by Alasdair MacIntyre in the first, the second, and the third parts of his Secularization and Moral Change. As with the posts summarizing the individual sections, here I must reiterate that Peter Webster has what is probably the best summary of the book out there. I have offered a set of excerpts from A. V. Demant’s review. I also have asked whether the pre-modern world was the unified moral community that MacIntyre suggests it is.
Outlines and summary completed, a somewhat haphazard collection of my reflections/thoughts on Secularization and Moral Change follows below.
Here I offer a question about whether MacIntyre’s framework in Secularization and Moral Change (we first reviewed part one, then part two, and finally part three, as well as summarizing the three parts) is entirely consistent with the evidence of previous ages regarding the novelty, within the modern period, of heterogeneous classes generating the loss of a sense of a shared moral community (and, thus, generating the loss of a shared religious community, culturally and sociologically).
I will not presume to answer this question, but I will offer material that will, I hope, allow one to ask it reasonably.
V. A. Demant wrote a review of Alasdair MacIntyre’s Secularization and Moral Change which I list chunks of here, from the April 1968 issue of The Journal of Theological Studies.
First off, I must reiterate that you, reader, should begin by reading Peter Webster’s summary and overview of MacIntyre’s book.
Once you’re done with Webster, I would recap that, in this book, MacIntyre asks and answers three questions as follows: Continue reading
We began to look at Alasdair MacIntyre’s Riddell Memorial Lectures gathered under the title Secularization and Moral Change in the first post in this series, followed by the second post. MacIntyre is best known for his book After Virtue. Here, we summarize the final of the three lectures that make up Secularization and Moral Change. As with the first and second posts, I refer the reader to Peter Webster’s excellent summary above all others — even my own. Continue reading