What is 'reflective equilibrium' as used in applied ethics?
AChoosing whichever ethical theory produces the most agreeable conclusions
BThe process of adjusting principles and intuitions until they are mutually consistent
CApplying a single theory mechanically to generate definitive answers
DAvoiding theoretical commitments and relying solely on moral intuition
Reflective equilibrium, developed by John Rawls, is the iterative process of moving between moral principles and particular moral judgments (intuitions), revising each in light of the other until they cohere. If a principle implies a clearly unacceptable conclusion, we revise the principle. If an intuition conflicts with a well-grounded principle, we may revise the intuition. Neither side is fixed in advance.
Question 2 True / False
Applied ethics is simply a matter of expressing personal opinions on controversial issues.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Applied ethics requires rigorous argument and systematic engagement with moral principles — it is not mere opinion-expression. The methodology involves identifying morally relevant features of a situation, applying and comparing theoretical frameworks, resolving conflicts between them using careful reasoning, and testing conclusions against considered moral intuitions. Strong moral intuitions serve as data points that constrain valid theories, not as substitutes for argument.
Question 3 Short Answer
Why might a consequentialist and a deontologist reach different conclusions about the same moral case, and does this show ethics is merely subjective?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: They disagree because they weight different morally relevant features: consequentialists focus on outcomes and overall welfare, while deontologists focus on duties and rights that hold regardless of consequences. This is a principled theoretical disagreement, not mere subjective preference — both positions can be argued for and critiqued rationally.
Ethical disagreement between frameworks reflects genuine theoretical differences about what is morally fundamental, not evidence that ethics is arbitrary. Consequences do matter morally, and so do rights and duties — both frameworks capture something real. The hard cases are hard precisely because both considerations are present and conflict. Applied ethics takes this seriously by requiring careful argument rather than treating disagreement as a reason to give up on reasoning.