A comparative critique of the moral philosophies of Alasdair MacIntyre and John Hare

This dissertation argues that the Aristotelianism of Alasdair MacIntyre is more cogent than the prescriptive realism of John Hare. Chapter 1 introduces the relationship between moral philosophy and apologetics and presents the thesis of the dissertation. Chapter 2 surveys the Aristotelian elements of MacIntyre's moral philosophy and provides an argument that these aspects of MacIntyre's philosophy provide his Aristotelianism with significant explanatory scope. Chapter 3 continues an analysis of MacIntyre's philosophy. The argument of this chapter is that the Thomist elements of MacIntyre's philosophy further the explanatory scope of his Aristotelianism. The chapter concludes with a response to two major objections. Chapter 4 presents the moral philosophy of John Hare and argues that three areas that appear to provide explanatory scope do not. Chapter 5 summarizes the Kantian elements of John Hare's moral philosophy. The argument of chapter 6 is that the primary argument of MacIntyre's moral philosophy is sounder than the primary argument of John Hare's moral philosophy. Chapter 7 provides the conclusion of the dissertation and explores the implications of MacIntyre's Aristotelianism for Christian apologetics.