Burns Tony
School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Front Sociol. 2022 Nov 10;7:986184. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.986184. eCollection 2022.
This paper examines the distinction between "internal goods" and "external goods" and its significance for the political thought of Alasdair MacIntyre, focusing especially on its relevance for our understanding of MacIntyre's views regarding the relationship which exists between "practices" and social "institutions. " The paper explores the origins of this distinction in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, both of whom (like MacIntyre) associate the notion of external goods with such things as wealth, status and power. Plato argues that these things are not really "goods" at all, but rather "bads," or things which ought to be avoided. Aristotle, on the other hand, takes issue with that view, arguing that the pursuit of such things is acceptable, morally speaking, provided it is in moderation and not to excess. The paper argues that what MacIntyre says about external goods and "the corrupting power of institutions" in is ambivalent. For this reason, his views are open to different possible interpretations. Most commentators have read and understood him as a follower of Aristotle. There is however a strain of Platonism at times in the critical remarks which he makes about social institutions and those who manage them.
本文探讨了“内在善”与“外在善”之间的区别及其对阿拉斯戴尔·麦金太尔政治思想的意义,尤其关注其与我们理解麦金太尔关于“实践”与社会“制度”之间关系的观点的相关性。本文探究了这种区别在柏拉图和亚里士多德著作中的起源,他们两人(与麦金太尔一样)都将外在善的概念与财富、地位和权力等事物联系在一起。柏拉图认为这些东西根本不是真正的“善”,而是“恶”,或者说是应该避免的东西。另一方面,亚里士多德则对这一观点提出异议,认为从道德上讲,追求这些东西是可以接受的,只要适度而不过度。本文认为,麦金太尔在[具体内容未提及处]中关于外在善和“制度的腐败力量”的论述是矛盾的。因此,他的观点有不同的可能解释。大多数评论家都将他解读和理解为亚里士多德的追随者。然而,在他对社会制度及其管理者的批判性言论中,有时也存在一种柏拉图主义的倾向。