Ethics after Babel

by Jeffrey L. Stout

A fascinating study of moral languages and their discontents, Ethics after Babel explains the links that connect contemporary moral philosophy, religious ethics, and political thought in clear, cogent, even conversational prose. Princeton's paperback edition of this award-winning book includes a new postscript by the author that responds to the book's noted critics, Stanley Hauerwas and the late Alan Donagan. In answering his critics, Jeffrey Stout clarifies the book's arguments and offers fresh reasons for resisting despair over the prospects of democratic discourse.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Theology, Academic

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1988

Reviews

[Meg Huber · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Moral discourse in pluralistic society is not threatened, then, by disagreement among its members about the good. Neither is it threatened by the confusion of tongues manifested in its various moral languages. It is threatened by the acids of injustice, which eat away at the moral fibre of privileged and victimized alike, and by the possibility of nuclear war, which would destroy much more than the prospects for rational moral debate.”

[Bernard English · Rating 4 out of 5]

To begin at the end, the book includes a quirky, fun lexicon which is not to be missed. Moving backwards, he helpfully and very briefly summarizes his main arguments in 14 numbered points in the last chapter.

Stout's analysis of two very widely read books, "Habits of the Heart" and "Beyond Moral Virtue" is useful whether you've read the books or not. I've only read the latter. I'm afraid the discussion of Richard Rorty requires more knowledge of Rorty's writings than I have. I found myself agreeing with Stout's stereoscopic social criticism for the most part. It's his term and no, it hasn't caught on. It's is just a commonsensical approach to ethics which for which no new term was really necessary. When he writes that (point 7. of his summary) "We can, nonetheless, reasonably hope for a world in which the proliferation, distribution, and merchandizing of external goods is subject to just political control. . . ."

I have to say this is exactly where the real debate begins. His stereoscopic criticism is skirting some very nasty details. The government's or society's desire to impose so called just political control will necessarily through some chain filter all the way down and make contact with individuals' at the point at which they are forced to make a decision, perhaps about a very mundane matter. Detailed examination of this is usually omitted because it seems tiresome to academics and policy makers. But this is the way average people come to experience bad policies and it really matters.

[Samuel · Rating 3 out of 5]

My rating is probably more reflective of the reader than the author. I struggled wading into the deep end of moral philosophy, though I do find myself inclined towards Stout's viewpoint, at least in conversation with his critics from a traditional outlook.

[Tylor Lovins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jeffrey Stout, with characteristic lucidity and complexity, discusses traditional ethical theories in light of the later Wittgenstein's legacy (using Rorty, Davidson, and Quine). This was very helpful: not only is his lexicon humorous, concise, and highly relevant (he advises, with quick philosophical quips, which understandings of issues such as conceptual schemes to commit oneself to), but his discussion of theories is both generous and critical. I'd recommend it to any student of ethics.