Reflective Equilibrium And Moral Intuition

The reflective equilibrium approach has been criticized from various quarters since it was first used by Rawls in ethics.The main reason for the criticism is its apparent emphasis on the importance of moral intuitions.Whether moral intuitions are reliable and then can be used as evidence for the existence of universally applicable moral knowledge has been a highly controversial issue.In particular,recent empirical studies of moral decision-making have continued to question the reliability of moral intuitions,and moral intuitionism faces the threat of losing its authority in general.The reflective equilibrium approach,which gives epistemological value to moral intuitions,will inevitably be subjected to more severe scrutiny,questioning,and revaluation.Starting from the concept of the reflective equilibrium approach itself,we clarify the controversial status of intuition as evidence,analyze the similarities between scientific observation and moral intuition based on their certain degree of consistency,explore the issue of reliability of moral intuition and the relationship between moral intuition and reflective equilibrium,and search for possible ways out of the reflective equilibrium approach.The controversy over reflective equilibrium focuses on giving initial credibility to moral intuitions,and roughly speaking,proponents of the reflective equilibrium approach respond to this challenge in two main ways.First,the challenge from experimental philosophy is not universally applicable and thus cannot shake the reliability of moral intuitions,and reflective equilibrium,which relies on intuition,is certainly immune to it.Second,even if it can be shown that intuitions do not possess the so-called reliability,reflective equilibrium methods can continue to be used as an irreplaceable ethical method for the time being.They have tried to set aside the relationship between intuition and the reflective equilibrium approach by tinkering with and reformulating concepts such as considered judgment and generalized reflective equilibrium.However,both approaches to seeking possibilities have been countered.The more radical opponents point out that the reflective equilibrium approach is either a variant of intuitionism or simply does not guarantee moral objectivity,and that the reason why it can only calmly continue to be used at present is that a suitable new alternative has not yet been found.In response to the above argument,it will be further argued that even though it is true that moral intuition is becoming less and less reliable in today’s constantly updated iterations of information technology,it cannot be set aside or discarded as an important component of the reflective equilibrium approach.By the same token,the reflective equilibrium approach will not be replaced by the unreliability of intuition.We need moral intuition,and we need the reflective equilibrium approach,and it is still the better approach that can shape individual morality and even guide the whole ethical society today.