Abstract
AbstractRawls’ notion of reflective equilibrium has a hybrid character. It is embedded in the pragmatist tradition, but also includes various Kantian and other non-pragmatist elements. I argue that we should discard all non-pragmatist elements and develop reflective equilibrium in a consistently pragmatist manner. I argue that this pragmatist approach is the best way to defend reflective equilibrium against various criticisms, partly by embracing the critiques as advantages. I begin with discussing how each of the three versions of reflective equilibrium in Rawls’ work combines pragmatist and non-pragmatist elements. For Rawls, the primary purpose of reflective equilibrium is epistemic: namely, to construct moral theories or judgments. In a pragmatist approach, there are three connected purposes for moral inquiry: right action, reliable understanding and self-improvement. Depending on the specific context of a reflective equilibrium process, these general purposes can give rise to a variety of specific purposes. In the next sections, I develop a pragmatist approach to reflective equilibrium and discuss the implications of this approach for core elements of reflective equilibrium. These elements are: the initial convictions, facts, personal commitments and comprehensive views of life, coherence and additional methods for critical scrutiny.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference47 articles.
1. Amaya, A. (2015). The tapestry of reason: an inquiry into the nature of coherence and its role in legal argument. Hart.
2. Baderin, A. (2017). Reflective equilibrium: Individual or public? Social Theory and Practice, 43, 1–28.
3. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
4. Beisbart, C., Betz, G., & Brun, G. (2021). Making reflective equilibrium precise: A formal model. Ergo, 8, 441–472. https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.1152
5. Botti, D. (2019). John Rawls and American Pragmatism: Between engagement and avoidance. Lexington Books.