Abstract

Philosophy of action that is a very important issue is to explore the "action person" Why should action? Michael Gold Theil action in the philosophy of identity is the traditional stance that the actions were the reason for action, he was primarily concerned with the premise that "What is the action by now should be the pursuit of good," followed by " Why was the actual situation faced ", when action in face of the premise of these two items, these premises will bring some action types are the" tips "so who knows how to inhibit the action of their own passion and should do to make action. He criticized contemporary two kinds of mainstream action regardless out of action who does not really know know what to do What is the correct, reasonable; actions were not concerned about making the right behavior in terms of their What are the value and significance; action by not because of law-abiding and happy; even, it will not become a good citizen because of pride. He saw action in the future of the practice of reasonable addition may be legitimate, more important, it should be more in line with ethics, in line with good principles. Because an ethical, the pursuit of good action who must be a spirit of practical management wisdom and moral reasoning carried out, and then actions of people. Tell how the cash wheat, however, described his idea of it regardless? The arguments point why he is reasonable, objective? That this thesis is seeking to explore the subject. One of the important topics of action philosophy is to explore why an actor has to act. In this regard, A. MacIntyre 's action philosophy identifies with the traditional position that the necessity for an actor to act is premised first on the "good that an actor is supposed to be pursue nowadays "and secondly on the" current situation one is confronted with. "These two premises will become some kind of reminders for the actors to restrain their own passions so as to do the right things. MacIntyre's criticizes that the actors belonging to the two mainstream discourses about action don't really know what are the right and reasonable things to do. These actors do not care about how valuable and meaningful it is for them to make the right actions; they are not happy about abiding the law; and they don't even feel proud of being good citizens. For MacIntyre, the practical reason of action should be not only legal, but also, and more importantly, a better principle in terms of ethics and good. Because an ethical and good-pursuing actor is necessarily an actor who makes moral reasoning based on practical reason before he acts. And yet how does A. MacIntyre make his claims? Why is his contention both rational and objective? That is exactly the topic of this paper.