The matter of the article is the study of the concept Aristotelian way of life as the concept of contemporary moral ontology. Several moral philosophers are considered: A.Flew, B.Williams, A.Macintyre, S.Hampshire, J.L.Mackie, R.M.Hare, etc. According to Flew, moral rationality is only the capacity to act and to be responsible in moral way. Moral rationality does not define the essence of moral acts. Williams treats Aristotle as a moral anti-realist. Macintyre proposes practical rationality, unlike the “theoretical” one, that depends on actions and not only on thoughts. Macintyre thinks that practical rationality is changeable in history. He calls the stage of practical rationality a tradition. S.Hampshire’s criticism of Aristotelian way of life is considered. He thinks that Aristotle is a founder of moral substantialism. The Aristotelian way of life is an ethics of individual perception. Ethical virtues must be conscious, but they are not rational in metaphysical sense. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is studied in the article. There are three main ideas of Aristotle that have been influenced the analytical moral philosophy: 1. The unity of all the virtues; 2. The practical character of morality; 3. The freedom of individual will. Aristotle taken in the mirror of analytic moral philosophy is an adept of practical thinking, incompatible with moral rationalism and substantialism. There are main characteristic features of the Aristotelian way of life: 1. It is an ethics of individual perception, 2. Individual perception is possible only in moral tradition, 3. Ethical virtues must be conscious, but they are not rational in metaphysical sense, 4. It is inseparable from analysis of moral actions, 5. It is in some aspects independent of language, 6. It is a possible standard of individual eudemonia. Ontology of the Aristotelian way of life is criticized here. It is an ontology of individual subject in his connection with tradition. Any practical moral rationality and Aristotelian way of life may be fulfilled only in society. Refs 18.
