Comparison Between Narrow And Wide Equilibrium

In the following short essay, I define and analyze reflective equilibrium, generally, as well as narrow and wide reflective equilibrium, specifically. I then defend reflective equilibrium from two potential critiques in an attempt to prove that it is a proper ethical method. In general, reflective equilibrium is a method in which an individual works back and forth among their considered judgements, principles, and theoretical considerations about broad or specific cases, revising these elements when necessary in order to achieve coherence among them. Coherence is achieved when an individual’s beliefs are consistent to, and provide support for, one another. An optimal reflective equilibrium occurs when said judgements, principles, and considerations are coherent to the point that further revision is unnecessary. Thus, a moral …show more content…
Narrow reflective equilibrium (NRE) focuses on specific instances and the principles which are related to them. It is typically distanced from the criticisms of other moral perspectives. As such, NRE is largely descriptive as opposed to normative. The coherent principles arrived at through NRE best account for the particular cases examined (i.e. “what should we do right now?”) rather than more general cases (i.e. “which theory should we base society in?”). Wide Reflective Equilibrium (WRE), on the other hand, includes more general theoretical considerations and leads to increased criticisms and stronger justificatory force. Rawls’ “Theory of Justice” was one of the first formulations of this type of reflective equilibrium as he proposed that individuals under the “original position” would construct their version of justice through WRE. Under the “original position”, individuals weigh their moral judgements and considerations in an effort to choose among competing principles and construct a feasible conception of justice for which people could easily