There’s an old joke that you can tell what kind of conservative a person is by what year they want to go back to. I’d say the decline of a shared morality happened over the past 60 years with the rise of hyper-individualism and moral relativism. MacIntyre, by contrast, argued that the loss of moral coherence was baked into the Enlightenment from its start, during the 18th century. The Enlightenment project failed, he argued, because it produced rationalistic systems of morals too thin and abstract to give meaning to actual lives. It destroyed coherent moral ecologies and left autonomous individuals naked and alone. Furthermore, it devalued the very faculties people had long used to find meaning. Reason and science are great at telling you how to do things, but not at answering the fundamental questions: Why are we here? What is the ultimate purpose of my life? What is right and what is wrong?
And then in the 19th and 20th centuries, along came the crew who tried to fill the moral vacuum the Enlightenment created. Nietzsche, for example, said: God is dead. We have killed him. Reason won’t save us. It’s up to heroic autonomous individuals to find meaning through some audacious act of will. We will become our own gods! Several decades later, Lenin, Mao, and Hitler came along, telling the people: You want some meaning in your life? March with me.
Psychologists have a saying: The hardest thing to cure is the patient’s attempt to self-cure. We’ve tried to cure the moral vacuum MacIntyre saw at the center of the Enlightenment with narcissism, fanaticism, and authoritarianism—and the cure turned out to be worse than the disease.
Today, we live in a world in which many, or even most, people no longer have a sense that there is a permanent moral order to the universe. More than that, many have come to regard the traditions of moral practice that were so central to the ancient worldview as too inhibiting—they get in the way of maximum individual freedom. As MacIntyre put it in his most famous book, After Virtue, “Each moral agent now spoke unconstrained by the externalities of divine law, natural teleology, or hierarchical authority.” Individuals get to make lots of choices, but they lack the coherent moral criteria required to make these choices well.
After Virtue opens with MacIntyre’s most famous thought experiment. Imagine, he writes, that somebody took all of the science books that have ever been written and shredded them. Meanwhile, all of the scientists have been killed and all of the laboratories burned down. All we are left with are some random pages from this science textbook or that. We would still have access to some scientific phrases such as neutrino or mass or atomic weight, but we would have no clue how they all fit together.
Our moral life, he asserts, is kind of like that. We use words like virtue and phrases like the purpose of life, but they are just random fragments that don’t cohere into a system you can bet your life on. People have been cut off from any vision of their ultimate purpose.
How do people make decisions about the right thing to do if they are not embedded in a permanent moral order? They do whatever feels right to them at the moment. MacIntyre called this “emotivism,” the idea that “all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling.” Emotivism feels natural within capitalist societies, because capitalism is an economic system built around individual consumer preferences.
One of the problems with living in a society with no shared moral order is that we have no way to settle arguments. We have no objective standard by which to determine that one view is right and another view is wrong. So public arguments just go on indefinitely, at greater levels of indignation and polarization. People use self-righteous words to try to get their way, but instead of engaging in moral argument, what they’re really doing is using the language of morality to enforce their own preferences.
If no one can persuade anybody about right and wrong, then there are only two ways to settle our differences: coercion or manipulation. Each of us comes to regard other members of society as simply means to our ends, who can be coerced into believing what we believe. (Welcome to corporate DEI programs.) Alternatively, advertisers, demagogues, and influencers try to manipulate our emotions so we will end up wanting what they want, helping them get what they want. (Welcome to the world of that master manipulator, Donald Trump.)
In the 1980s, the philosopher Allan Bloom wrote a book arguing that in a world without moral standards, people just become bland moral relativists: You do you. I’ll do me. None of it matters very much. This is what Kierkegaard called an aesthetic life: I make the choices that feel pleasant at the moment, and I just won’t think much about life’s ultimate concerns. As MacIntyre put it, “The choice between the ethical and the aesthetic is not the choice between good and evil, it is the choice whether or not to choose in terms of good and evil.”
But the moral relativism of the 1980s and ’90s looks like a golden age of peace and tranquility compared with today. Over the past 30 years, people have tried to fill the hole in their soul by seeking to derive a sense of righteousness through their political identities. And when you do that, politics begins to permeate everything and turns into a holy war in which compromise begins to seem like betrayal.
Worse, people are unschooled in the virtues that are practical tools for leading a good life: honesty, fidelity, compassion, other-centeredness. People are rendered anxious and fragile. As Nietzsche himself observed, those who know why they live can endure anyhow. But if you don’t know why you’re living, then you fall apart when the setbacks come.
Society tends to disintegrate. Ted Clayton, a political scientist at Central Michigan University, put it well: “MacIntyre argues that today we live in a fragmented society made up of individuals who have no conception of the common good, no way to come together to pursue a common good, no way to persuade one another what the common good might be, and indeed most of us believe that the common good does not and cannot exist.”
Along comes Trump, who doesn’t even try to speak the language of morality. When he pardons unrepentant sleazeballs, it doesn’t seem to even occur to him that he is doing something that weakens our shared moral norms. Trump speaks the languages we moderns can understand. The language of preference: I want. The language of power: I have the leverage. The languages of self, of gain, of acquisition. Trump doesn’t subsume himself in a social role. He doesn’t try to live up to the standards of excellence inherent in a social practice. He treats even the presidency itself as a piece of personal property he can use to get what he wants. As the political theorist Yuval Levin has observed, there are a lot of people, and Trump is one of them, who don’t seek to be formed by the institutions they enter. They seek instead to use those institutions as a stage to perform on, to display their wonderful selves.
So of course many people don’t find Trump morally repellent. He’s just an exaggerated version of the kind of person modern society was designed to create. And Democrats, don’t feel too self-righteous here. If he was on your team, most of you would like him too. You may deny it, but you’re lying to yourself. Few of us escape the moral climate of our age. As MacIntyre himself put it, “The barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament.”
MacIntyre was a radical—both of the left and the right. He wanted us to return to the kind of coherent, precapitalist moral communities that existed before the Enlightenment project failed, locally at first and then on a larger scale. That’s the project that a lot of today’s post-liberals have embarked upon, building coherent communities around stronger gods—faith, family, flag.
I confess I find many of the more recent post-liberals—of both left- and right-wing varieties—absurd. People who never matured past the first week of grad school can spin abstract theories about re-creating some sort of totalistic solidarity, but what post-liberalism amounts to in real life is brutal authoritarianism. (A century ago, Marxists talked in similarly lofty terms about building solidarity, but what their ideas led to in the real world was a bunch of gangster states, such as the Soviet Union.)
We’re not walking away from pluralism, nor should we. In fact, pluralism is the answer. The pluralist has the ability to sit within the tension created by incommensurate values. A good pluralist can celebrate the Enlightenment, democratic capitalism, and ethnic and intellectual diversity on the one hand and also a respect for the kind of permanent truths and eternal values that MacIntyre celebrates on the other.
A good pluralist can see his or her life the way that the former Cub Ryne Sandberg saw his—subservient to a social role, willing to occasionally sacrifice immediate self-interest in order to get the runner into scoring position.
Recovering from the moral scourge of Trumpism means restoring the vocabulary that people can use to talk coherently about their moral lives, and distinguish a person with character from a person without it.
We don’t need to entirely reject the Enlightenment project, but we probably need to recalibrate the culture so that people are more willing to sacrifice some freedom of autonomy for the sake of the larger community. We need to offer the coming generations an education in morals as rigorous as their technical and career education. As the ancients understood, this involves the formation of the heart and the will as much as the formation of the rational mind.
These are the kinds of humanistic endeavors that MacIntyre devoted himself to, and they are part of the legacy he leaves behind.
Mary Starkey, this city’s septuagenarian queen of etiquette who wrote the book on being a butler and trained thousands in her Cap Hill mansion, was rebuked in court Tuesday.
After 100 minutes of deliberation, a jury of seven Denverites determined that Starkey & Associates, an arm of the butler bootcamp she ran for decades, owes a $9,500 refund to a wealthy couple after allegedly hiding a butleress’s criminal history from them.
“The Slushers unfortunately trusted the defendant to find them a house manager,” Bryan Kuhn, the lawyer for Naomi and Shannon Slusher, told jurors in opening arguments.
“Ms. Starkey betrayed the trust of the Slushers. Ms. Starkey knew about problems with one candidate, and she opted not to disclose them,” Kuhn alleged this week.
Starkey & Associates contends it did what it could for the Slushers and their four children. It recommended a manager for their home after another, John Hensley, was fired, even though it didn’t have to. That replacement, Emile Stafford, had a drunken driving arrest.
“This case is about getting what you paid for, no more and no less,” said Thomas Goodreid, the attorney for Starkey’s company. “The Slushers got what they paid for and want more.”
The appointment came with a 60-day guarantee. When Hensley was fired 61 days after he began working in North Carolina, the Slushers were not allowed a refund, Goodreid said.
Starkey, 76, testified on her own behalf Monday afternoon and again Tuesday morning, walking jurors through her 45-year run atop the Starkey International Institute for Household Management, which operated out of a mansion at 1350 Logan St. in Denver.
The school closed years ago, and the mansion was sold to a housing co-op for $2.8 million in December. Starkey & Associates placed graduates of the school in people’s homes.
Starkey, who is hard of hearing, struggled at times to follow questioning from Slusher’s attorney and her own and to remember dates and details. A court employee typed a transcript of what was being said onto a screen before her. Starkey grew combative at times as she defended her life’s work teaching people how to pamper the well-heeled.
“I never had to give refunds. I have a reputation: If I am not right the first time, I will be the second time,” Starkey said of her ability to find replacement butlers for clients.
“Did you refund the Slushers in this case?” asked the couple’s lawyer, Kuhn.
The 13,000-square-foot Starkey Mansion at 1350 N. Logan St. (BusinessDen file)
“No,” Starkey responded Tuesday, “because I found a replacement, did I not?”
Starkey admitted knowing about Stafford’s past arrest — her former student had confided about it before joining the school — but said she forgot about it by the time she recommended Stafford to the Slushers. It did not appear on a background check that Starkey & Associates performed before the placement because the arrest was more than seven years prior.
“My husband and I had expected the (Starkey) agency to work in good faith to find us a house manager, and she did not operate in good faith,” Naomi Slusher testified. “The candidates she presented to us were not quality candidates. I don’t feel that she lived up to expectations.”
Shannon Slusher testified after his wife about a Google search he did of Stafford’s name.
“I found a drunken mugshot for Ms. Stafford from the state of South Carolina,” he told jurors.
Before sending the case to the jury, Judge Andrew McCallin pared it down. He found no evidence that Starkey & Associates had defrauded the Slushers or negligently misrepresented Stafford’s past. Jurors were left with only a breach of contract claim to consider.
“You didn’t set out to defraud the Slushers, did you?” Starkey’s attorney, Goodreid from Goodreid Grant & Walta, asked the longtime etiquette expert Tuesday.
“Absolutely not,” she answered. “Why would I do that?”
“It certainly isn’t in your business interests to have dissatisfied clients, is it?” Goodreid asked.
“And it’s not who I am as a person,” Starkey half-shouted. “I care about my clients!”
In comments after the verdict came down Tuesday, Shannon Slusher saw things differently. He said the case was never about money but about exacting some justice on Starkey.
“She is an absolute scumbag of a human being,” he told BusinessDen.