Reflective Equilibrium. Part III: The problem of moral disagreement, relativism and underdeterminacy of the method (in Polish)

Artur Szutta

About author

Artur Szutta, PhD
University of Gdańsk
Institute of Philosophy, Sociology, and Journalism
ul. Bażyńskiego 4
Pl-80-952 Gdańsk
e-mail: aszutta102@gmail.com

Abstract


One of the main objections against the method of reflective equilibrium is that it is not able to overcome the problem of moral disagreement, and, what is more, it deepens the problem. It is so, the objection goes, due to the following defects of the method: first, it is relativistic in its character, it allows for two different persons to hold two excluding, equally justified sets of moral beliefs as long as they meet the condition of holding these beliefs in reflective equilibrium; second, the method is severely underdetermined, and for this reason it cannot support any convergence of moral views of different persons, even when they use the method in a meticulous way. What is more, because of its underdeterminacy, the objection goes, the method of reflective equilibrium differentiates the outcomes of its application even among those who share the same starting point (the same considered moral judgements). The aim of the paper is to critically analyze and respond to the above objection. I am trying to show that the reflective equilibrium method does not presuppose relativism, and its underdeterminacy can be diminished by some modifications of the method, especially by postulating the constraints of some level of intellectual and ethical virtues of the agents applying the method.

Full Text:

PDF (In Polish)


References


  1. J. Bates, Reflective Equilibrium and Underdetermination in Epistemology, „Acta Analytica” (19) 2004, s. 45-64.
  2. T. Bonk, Underdetermination. An Essay on Evidence and the Limits of Natural Knowledge, Springer, Dordreht 2008.
  3. D. Bonevac, Reflection without Equilibrium, „The Journal of Philosophy” (101) 2004, s. 363-388.
  4. R. Brambrough, Proof, [w:] Ethical Theory. An Anthology, R. Shafer-Landau (ed.), Balckwell 2007, s. 103-110.
  5. N. Daniels, Justice and Justification, Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1996.
  6. N. Daniels, Reflective Equilibrium, [w:] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu, first published 28 April 2003.
  7. M. DePaul, Two Conceptions of Coherence Methods in Ethics, „Mind” (96) 1987, s. 463-481.
  8. M. DePaul, Naivete and Corruption in Moral Inquiry, “Philosophy and Phenomenological Research” (48) 1988, s. 619-635.
  9. M. DePaul, Balance and Refinement: Beyond Coherence Methods of Moral Inquiry, Routledge, Florence KY 1993.
  10. Intellectual Virtue. Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology, M. DePaul, L. Trinkhaus-Zagzebski (eds), Clarendon Press, Oxford 2003.
  11. Virtue Epistemology. Essays in Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility, A. Fairweather, L. Zagzebski (eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001.
  12. W. Haslett, What is Wrong with Reflective Equilibria?, „The Philosophical Quarterly” (37) 1987, s. 305-311.
  13. M. Huemer, Ethical Intuitionism, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2005.
  14. J. Humphreysa, The Story of Virtue. Universal Lessons on How to Live, The Liffey Press, Dublin 2005.
  15. T. Kąkol, Kilka uwag w sprawie kryterium genetycznego w sporze o (nie tylko) aborcję, „Etyka Praktyczna” (2) 2011, s. 78-84.
  16. J. Mackie, Ethics. Inventing Right and Wrong, Penguin, New York 1977.
  17. K. Nielsen, Relativism and Wide Reflective Equilibrium, „Monist” (76) 1993, s. 316-332.
  18. W.V. Quine, On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World, „Erkenntins” (9) 1975, s. 313-328.
  19. J. Rawls, The Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics, „The Philosophical Review” (60) 1951, s. 177-197, [przedrukowany w:] J. Rawls, Collected Papers, S. Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge ,Mass. 2001, s. 1-19.
  20. J. Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory, „The Philosophical Review” (60) 1951, s. 177-197 [przedrukowany w:] J. Rawls, Collected Papers, S. Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2001, s. 286-302.
  21. M. Rutkowski, O kryterium genetycznym w sporze o aborcję raz jeszcze. Odpowiedź na zarzuty, „Etyka Praktyczna” (2) 2011, s. 85-91.
  22. T. Scanlon, Rawls on Justification, [w:] Cambridge Companion to Rawls, S. Freeman (ed.), Cambridge University Press, New York 2003, s. 139-167.
  23. R. Shafer-Landau, Moral Realism. A Defence, Clarendon Press, Oxford 2003.
  24. N. Szutta, Współczesna etyka cnót, Wyd. Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Gdańsk 2007.
  25. A. Szutta, Metoda refleksyjnej równowagi. Część I: prezentacja metody, „Diametros” (35) 2013, 129-149.
  26. A. Szutta, Metoda refleksyjnej równowagi. Część II: Zarzut błędnego koła i problem wiarygodności rozważnych sądów moralnych, „Diametros” (36) 2013, s. 122-146.
  27. F. Tersman, Moral Disagreement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2006.
  28. L. Trinkaus-Zagzebski, Virtues of the Mind. An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1996.

DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13153/diam.37.2013.533

Article links:

Default URL: http://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/index.php/diametros/article/view/533
Polish abstract URL: http://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/index.php/diametros/article/view/533/pl
English abstract URL: http://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/index.php/diametros/article/view/533/en

Share:






All works are licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.