Heyward and Caney press important criticisms of the arguments defended in my book, and even to the made mode of argumentation pursued in the book. These challenging responses concern some of the books basic arguments. I explore areas of common ground between us, try to cast my claims in the larger approach of the book, and suggest what my might be at stake with respect to our differences. I close by speculating on what it might mean to engage in an exercise of public philosophy, and the extent to which the pursuit of rational argumentation should guide that effort.
