• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.137
• /
• pp.57-79
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this paper is to explain MacIntyre's critique of moral pluralism of modern society and reveal the limits of his critique of liberalism. It is a distinctive feature of the social and cultural order that we inhabit that disagreements over central moral issues are peculiarly unsettleable. Debates concerned with the value of human life such as those over abortion and euthanasia, or about distributive justice and property rights, or about war and peace degenerate into confrontations of assertion and counter-assertion because the protagonists of rival positions invoke incommensurable forms of moral assertion against each other. We usually call this situation 'modern moral pluralism' and concede as the natural outcome of the activities of human reason under free institution. But in After Virtue, MacIntyre vigorously criticizes modern moral pluralism. The main cause he took which brought about this state of affairs was the failure of 'the Enlightenment project'. According to MacIntyre, the Enlightenment project which has dominated philosophy for the past three hundred years promised a conception of rationality independent of historical and social context, and independent of any specific understanding of man's nature or purpose. But not only has that promise in fact been unfulfilled, the project is itself fundamentally flawed and the promise could never be fulfilled. In consequence, modern moral and political thought are in a state of disarray from which they can be rescued only if we revert to an Aristotelian paradigm, with its essential commitment, and construct an account of practical reason premised on that commitment. But one of the deepest difficulties with the argument of After Virtue is that the very extent of its critique of the modern world seems to cast doubt on the possibility of any realistic revival under the conditions of modernity of the Aristotelianism which MacIntyre advocates. Especially when we consider we are not only the characters found in our narratives but also we ourselves are the author of our own narratives. Moral pluralism is not seen as disaster but rather as the natural outcome of the activities of human reason under enduring free institutions.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.60-77
• /
• 2020

An assumption can be made that, as a start point for the recognition and utilization of cultural heritage, the "choice" of such would reflect the cultural ideology of the ruling power at that time. This has finally been proved by the case of Korea in the 20th century. First, in the late Korean Empire (1901-1910), the prevailing cultural ideology had been inherited from the Joseon Dynasty. The main objects that the Joseon Dynasty tried to protect were royal tombs and archives. During this time, an investigation by the Japanese into Korean historic sites began in earnest. Stung by this, enlightened intellectuals attempted to recognize them as constituting independent cultural heritage, but these attempts failed to be institutionalized. During the 1910-1945 Japanese occupation, the Japanese led investigations to institutionalize Korean cultural heritage, which formed the beginning of the current cultural heritage management system. At that time, the historical investigation, designation, protection, and enhancement activities led by the Japanese Government-General of Korea not only rationalized their colonial occupation of Korea but also illustrated their colonial perspective. Korean nationalists processed the campaign for the love of historical remains on an enlightening level, but they had their limits in that the campaign had been based on the outcome of research planned by the Japanese. During the 1945-2000 period following liberation from Japan, cultural heritage restoration projects took places that were based on nationalist ideology. People intended to consolidate the regime's legitimacy through these projects, and the enactment of the 'Cultural Heritage Charter' in 1997 represented an ideology in itself that stretched beyond a means of promoting nationalist ideology. During the past 20 centuries, cultural heritage content changed depending on the whims of those with political power. Such choices reflected the cultural ideology that the powers at any given time held with regard to cultural heritage. In the background of this cultural heritage choice mechanism, there have been working trade-off relationships formed between terminology and society, as well as the ideological characteristics of collective memories. The ruling party has tried to implant their ideology on their subjects, and we could consider that it wanted to achieve this by being involved in collective memories related to traditional culture, so called-choice, and utilization of cultural heritage.