Abstract

Paul Piccone's objections to Anthony Matteo's “neoscholastic” attempt to show the possibility of a “science of ethics” misses the point in several ways. Contrary to Piccone's charge that Matteo is merely “recycling an Aristotelian-Thomism to vindicate a particular interpretation of conventional morality by turning it into an extension of natural law,” Matteo is addressing an important political issue concerning what shared cultural assumptions are necessary to allow authentic communities to function and coexist. According to Matteo, such a project is possible because most of the human race, unless demented or hopelessly callous, have shared moral sentiments and engage in a common form of moral reasoning.