ETHICS AFTER BABEL PA TXT [Paperback]

Jeffrey Stout (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Throwing down the gauntlet to nihilists and skeptics who, in his opinion, are cowed by the sheer diversity of modern society, Stout's central message is that religious ethics are the litmus test of any secular philosophy. "This weighty tome will repay the careful reader," remarked PW.
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Product Details

• Paperback: 338 pages
• Publisher: Beacon Press (June 1, 1990)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0807014036
• ISBN-13: 978-0807014035
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,172,867 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Helpful book covers the interesting in contemp ethics, May 12, 1998

By A Customer

This review is from: ETHICS AFTER BABEL PA TXT (Paperback)

The best part of this book is in the last few chapters or so when Stout comments on the work of Alasdair MacIntyre and Richard Rorty. Stout paints himself as a "sensible" Rortian but adopts the conceptual framework of chapters 13 & 14 of MacIntyre's _After Virtue_. This is a very interesting amalgamation indeed and well-worthy of its characterization as "bricolage." One of the most interesting things Stout does with MacIntyre is to apply M's virtue ethic concepts (tradition, practice internal goods, etc.) to medical ethics. Since virtue ethics is unquestionably one of the most promising strands of contemporary moral philosophy, and because applied ethics have been dominated by Consequentialists and Kantians to this point, Stout's suggestions here cannot be but intriguing. The opening chapter where Stout categorizes types of relativism and explains his own position is also helpful. The chapters on moral abomination and James Gustafson do not cohere well with the rest of the book. The stuff about why we view things as abominable is good food for thought but doesn't seem truly apropos. In the Gustafson chapter, Stout appears to correctly identify Gustafson's views as theism with the theism taken away. But if this is true, why would this material prove interesting to the theist or the atheist? The ideas in this chapter certainly did not prove interesting to me. It would be well-skipped. But all in all, this book is worth reading, if selectively.