Despite my quoting Singer, I'm not inclined to dismiss MacIntyre's Aristotelianism. I think the concept of a tradition of virtue, and of categories of living that reflect character and a moral attitude are quite valid.

As I've said, I situate an ethological formulation of instinctive empathy as primary in ethical decision making (a kind of emotivism). Subsequent to it, I invoke a consequentialist argument to explain how we come by an objective understanding of harm.

I despise religion in all its manifestations*, so my formulation of 'virtue' also tends to follow a naturalistic, anti-authoritarian and existential path that champions personal responsibility over mass chanting in unison. Of the theological virtues -faith, hope and charity- only charity acquires a positive evaluation in my ethical schema, and its co-opting as a characteristic virtue by religious traditions seems to me a baseless self promotion.

But there is definitely room for some crossover between my position and MacIntyre's.

For me, being attracted to children isn't a moral problem, it is a simple fact. Where I think MacIntyre might have something useful to contribute (and I intend to read some of his work) is in that the primary moral problem faced by paedophiles is the apparent absence of any clear tradition of right action that addresses their own particular needs. In MacIntyre's terms, there is no narrative tradition of paedophilia that enables virtue.

In truth there is. That tradition is well established, but it has been driven underground and all but destroyed by the wave of persecution over recent decades. I think it's important to rehabilitate it. There is a rich tradition to draw on, a tradition of paedophiles who are 'great souls' and are not 'moral monsters', and who have written movingly about their lives and experiences.

In these difficult times, I think it takes some courage (not merely daring) to assert the potential for good in paedophiles, so I'm going to give myself a pat on the back just for suggesting it.

*Just want to add, I'm sorry about any offense this statement causes. I realise it's unfair and unreasonable. I know religion is important to many people, including some people I care about. I'm leaving it in as a declaration of bias.

I should add that Aristotelian arguments stemming from the social forms of the telos of the polis are machinist, in that they honour the human superorganism, the city-state. This organism does not have human qualities, or human values, and it's own values are not relevant to what is good for human beings.

Not only are they not relevant, they are inimical. The city-state is to the human subject what a Silon is to Starbuck.

And I should also add that my attitude to religion is not personal. I have no sense that religion motivates the kind of prejudice of which I've been a victim.

Would that also hold true for the nation state?

What are you unsurprised about?

Yep. Same thing really. It's complicated. I'm patriotic in a way, but I put people before flags I suppose.

Nuttin' jus sayin'

"Is one human life worth more than another?"
 

Yes, in a subjective sense.


My life is, to me, worth more than the presidential porch monkey's.

My 3 year old nephew's life is, to me, worth more than my own.


Objectively: all of them, including mine, are 'worth' spit... ;)

Oh, Henry! So glad to see you!

And you may not believe this, but I actually AGREE with what you just said.

/Tips hat

Stir the musicians! I is returned! ;)
 

"Oh, Henry! So glad to see you!"

Queenie!

#

"And you may not believe this, but I actually AGREE with what you just said."

Which part?

The 'subjective value of a life' part, or, 'the presidential porch monkey' part?

HA!

Actually all three points: subjectivity, monkey business, and Spit.

subjectivity, monkey business, and Spit
 

A very nice summation!

One primate is pretty much the same as another, so no.

The question deserves an objective answer and a personal answer. In objective terms, no. But since we are social creatures, the lives of those I know are more "important" and will certainly take precedence.

Depends. I hate most of the humans I know, so I don't put them ahead of anyone else. Some exceptions exist, but not enough to base a concrete philosophy on.

I suspect not. Didn't we ban these guys or is this a new troll?