ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses that ideological appeals on behalf of a certain way of life have non-rhetorical significance. It argues that one can legitimately claim that a certain way of life possesses non-partisan validity, or better, that one can do this without saying anything that is philosophically indefensible. To defend neo-Aristotelian approach, a 'naturalistic' approach based on the distinction between the natural and the conventional, against the 'naturalistic fallacy', the chief objection usually raised against it. The chapter explores a difficulty posed by our inability to make a case that a certain way of life has non-partisan validity in terms of moral goodness, a difficulty one have called 'the problem of the moral hero'. However, we used the debate between Jeffersonian and conservative Social Darwinists in America primarily as an illustration, that is, one used it to provide a concrete example of humane men whose esprit de corps was threatened by the problem of ethical scepticism.
