Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:57:36.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Morality is Marxism—II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The challenge which faced all Greek intellectuals alike, can be reconstructed in the form of a dilemma. Either some way of fixing a descriptive meaning for the language of moral evaluation had to be found, or, in the absence of any such method, moral and political virtue would have to be taught as a way of living well in a world where prescription was the basis of morality. In either case the fact remained that virtue would have to be taught.

Those who, like Plato and Aristotle, opted for the first alternative were faced with the problem generated by their adherence to the old assumption: namely that the descriptive meaning of moral evaluation was discoverable only in terms of some social order, some polis, to be a good member of which was to be a good man. But the very fact that it was now problematic what one’s polis was, meant that the search for moral knowledge had to be seen as the proper object of some specialized form of enquiry into the question, that is, of what those social roles and relationships are, to understand which is to understand how the good man acts. Thus it is that if political virtue can be taught it also needs to be taught. It can be taught because everyone knows what the universal virtues of the political life are, and that they are virtues—for, as Thucydides had emphasized, even bad men justify their vices in the language of those virtues.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 ‐EN 1145b 2‐8. 2 Mentioned on p. 117.

1 Cf. Grundrisse, ed. and trans. McLellan, D., London, 1971, pp. 2233Google Scholar. 2 Op. cit., pp. 22‐23.

1 0p. tit., p. 38.

2 See their introduction to Sociological Theory and Philosophical Analysis, London, 1971Google Scholar.