Philosophy

“It is easy also to understand why protest becomes a distinctive moral
feature of the modem age and why indignation is a predominant modern
emotion. ‘To protest’ and its Latin predecessors and French cognates are
originally as often or more often positive as negative; to protest was once
to bear witness to something and only as a consequence of that allegiance
to bear witness against something else.
But protest is now almost entirely that negative phenomenon which
characteristically occurs as a reaction to the alleged invasion of someone’s
rights in the name of someone else’s utility. The self-assertive shrillness of
protest arises because the facts of incommensurability ensure that protestors
can never win an argument; the indignant self-righteousness of protest
arises because the facts of incommensurability ensure equally that the
protestors can never lose an argument either. Hence the utterance of protest
is characteristically addressed to those who already share the protestors’
premises. The effects of incommensurability ensure that protestors rarely
have anyone else to talk to but themselves. This is not to say that protest
cannot be effective; it is to say that it cannot be rationally effective and that
its dominant modes of expression give evidence of a certain perhaps unconscious
awareness of this.” (p. 71)
1. In your own words, briefly explain what MacIntyre is arguing in this passage.
2. Do you agree or disagree with this argument? Why or why not?

ANSWER

Maclntyre on why We Protest

1. In your own words, briefly explain what MacIntyre is arguing in this passage.

In this passage, Maclntyre’s primary concern is why individuals argue with each other regarding moral issues in society. According to his explanation, protests ought to emerge as a form of bearing witness to something. In this case, the negative consequences of the protests should arise due to allegiance against something else. However, today’s protests only have a negative consequence, as they arise from the alleged invasion of someone’s right in the name of someone else’s utility. The main issue, in this case, is the lack of a specific objective framework from which to base the argument. The lack of a standard measure makes it impossible for the protestors to win an argument (MacIntyre pg. 71). As a result, the arguments eventually become more about the protestors, as they are based on what they already believe.

A significant implication of this aspect is that modern morality makes it challenging to present convincing arguments, as it is often overwhelmed by individualism. Also, the fact that the arguments are constructed on personal preferences about an individual’s perceptions makes it less convincing. Given this understanding, it, therefore, becomes imperative to embody the issues of the protests. Fundamentally, the protests are disconnected from tradition and community. Such circumstances compel the protestors to place their hope in attracting the media’s attention to present their argument. As explained by Maclntyre, self-assertive behavior occurs due to the lack of a common objective that hinders their ability to win a protest. Thus, incommensurability results in protests constructed on self-confidence, where individuals only talk to themselves.

2. Do you agree or disagree with this argument? Why or why not?

I agree with Maclntyre’s argument that protests are based on personal preferences and ideas. The concept of individualism can be illustrated by how employees protest for wage increment. In this case, the workers are simply motivated by their own needs rather than acting rationally. A typical modern person is driven by their own desire to acquire more resources. Currently, our culture discourages individuals from evaluating conflicting arguments due to a lack of a central measure from which to base their protests.

While some protestors may be motivated by the need for a better salary, the opposing party can base their argument on economic deterioration, forcing them to maintain the current wages. The incompatible nature of the opposing sides makes it difficult to reach a solution even when the two arguments are deemed valid. Thus, merely accepting the two arguments as true does not resolve the main problem of the protest. Today, many protestors gather large groups through social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (Wiederhold pg 1). Technological advance has altered the way individuals organize protests, as posts on such platforms only require people to adhere to the request without considering the main issues in the argument.

Based on Maclntyre’s ideas, successful protests or arguments should rely on existing agreements in the community about what is regarded as good or bad. Individual ideas are often driven by their feelings and attitudes towards a specific aspect of life. In such scenarios, the protestors may lack rational facts to justify their actions towards an event or a person. For instance, people from a specific group may protest against the current leadership in their country. In this case, while protestors may base their decisions on hate, their argument may suggest bad leadership as the main cause. On the other side, the proposers may be motivated by specific benefits they obtain from the government, thus inhibiting the ability to justify either of the two parties’ claims. Overall, it is impossible to win protests due to the lack of a common truth to justify the argument.

WORKS CITED

MacIntyre, Alasdair. After virtue. A&C Black, 2013.

Wiederhold, Brenda K. “Social Media and Social Organizing: From Pandemic to Protests.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 23.9 (2020): 579-580.