ABSTRACT
MacIntyre, like other contemporary writers, is making the mistake of thinking that to define ‘moral’ is also to define ‘ought’. It is surprising to find a member of the movement to which one takes MacIntyre to belong apparently maintaining that no neutral statements can be made about our use of moral language. It is true that some people are for impersonality of judgement in morals and others against, and that this debate comes under the heading of ethics. But the issue between them need not be interpreted as a strictly moral one. In attacking this argument of MacIntyre’s, the author do not mean to disparage the rest of this interesting essay, in which he makes a good case for a more existentialist view of moral judgements than that which prevails among British and American moral philosophers.
