A philosopher applies a utilitarian principle and derives the conclusion that harvesting one person's organs without consent to save five is morally required. According to reflective equilibrium, what is the appropriate response?
AAccept the conclusion — the principle was applied correctly, so the conclusion must be right
BReject the principle entirely and abandon utilitarian reasoning
CTreat the monstrous conclusion as evidence against at least one premise, and revise the principle or background theory rather than accepting the conclusion
DSuspend judgment — reflective equilibrium says we cannot adjudicate between principle and intuition
This is 'tollensing the ponens': when an argument leads to a conclusion that seems clearly monstrous, reflective equilibrium treats the strongly counterintuitive conclusion as evidence that something in the argument chain is wrong. Rather than accepting the conclusion because the logic is valid, you run the argument in reverse — the strong intuition that non-consensual organ harvesting is wrong becomes a premise that refutes or revises the utilitarian principle. Reflective equilibrium permits revision at any level; the intuition has evidential weight, not just the principle.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
What distinguishes wide reflective equilibrium from narrow reflective equilibrium?
AWide RE applies to more people; narrow RE applies only to the individual philosopher
BWide RE incorporates background theories about the nature of morality, metaethics, and human psychology as a third level of adjustment; narrow RE only seeks coherence between particular judgments and moral principles
CWide RE requires more time; narrow RE can be done quickly
DWide RE starts from principles; narrow RE starts from intuitions
Narrow RE seeks coherence between two levels: considered moral judgments (intuitions about particular cases) and moral principles. Wide RE adds a third level: background theories about the nature and purpose of morality, metaethical commitments, empirical facts about human psychology, and broader philosophical commitments. Wide RE is more ambitious — it doesn't just ask 'do my moral beliefs cohere?' but 'does my entire moral worldview, including its metaethical foundations, hang together?' Rawls used wide RE to derive his principles of justice.
Question 3 True / False
Reflective equilibrium is a foundationalist approach to moral epistemology because it treats considered moral judgments as the basic, unrevokable foundation from which most principles should be derived.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Reflective equilibrium is a coherentist approach, not a foundationalist one. Foundationalism holds that some beliefs are basic and immune to revision — all other beliefs are justified by deriving from these foundations. RE explicitly rejects this: revision can happen at any level. Considered judgments can be revised in light of principles; principles can be revised in light of judgments; background theories can be revised in light of both. No level is foundational or unrevokable. This is precisely what distinguishes RE from simple intuitionism, which treats intuitions as basic and authoritative.
Question 4 True / False
In reflective equilibrium, moral intuitions can sometimes be revised in light of moral principles, rather than always adjusting principles to fit intuitions.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This is a crucial feature of RE that distinguishes it from pure intuitionism. The method allows revision in either direction: if a principle seems well-grounded and an intuition seems parochial, culturally contingent, or based on bias, the intuition can be revised. Historical moral progress often looks like this — widespread intuitions about who deserves moral consideration have been revised upward through moral argument. RE is iterative and bidirectional; the goal is a stable coherence across levels, achieved through mutual adjustment, not one-way accommodation.
Question 5 Short Answer
What problem does 'tollensing the ponens' solve within reflective equilibrium, and why can't pure principle-application handle it?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: 'Tollensing the ponens' handles the problem of arguments with valid form but monstrous conclusions. Pure principle-application runs arguments forward: if the premises are true and the logic is valid, accept the conclusion. But sometimes this produces conclusions that seem clearly wrong — conclusions strong enough that we are more confident they are wrong than we are confident in the premises. Reflective equilibrium treats the strong intuition against the conclusion as evidence against one of the premises, allowing us to run the argument backwards: 'not-C, and P2, therefore not-P1.' Pure deductivism has no mechanism for this — it cannot let the conclusion's wrongness count against the premises.
This capacity is what makes reflective equilibrium a realistic model of moral reasoning rather than a formal machine. Moral knowledge doesn't come from infallible axioms applied mechanically; it comes from building coherence across multiple levels, each of which has some evidential weight. When a valid argument produces a conclusion we are overwhelmingly confident is wrong, that confidence is data — and RE gives us a principled way to use it. The iterative, bidirectional character of RE is not a weakness but a feature that matches how careful moral thinking actually operates.