ABSTRACT
Jeffrey Stout uses his considerable analytical skills to show how a proper understanding of moral rationality can avoid being impaled on the horns of either foundationalism or relativism, while likewise escaping the social alternatives of nihilism or communitarianism. If Stout were to take up a historical investigation of liberalism and pluralism, it would likely reveal that the liberal, or pluralistic, tradition in America is highly parasitic on other historical traditions and narratives for its justifications. The outcome of Stout's experiment in moral bricolage is that he secures a powerfully descriptive set of concepts and vocabulary in which to inscribe the moral tensions and conflicts that afflict contemporary moral discourse and practice. Stout's reliance on Davidsonian arguments does little more than push the question one step further back—to the question of what counts as meaningful agreement and disagreement.
