David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 25 (3):277 – 306 (1982)
A method of reflective equilibrium is adumbrated and then used to test the adequacy of moral conceptions appealing to fundamental human rights against Nietzschean conceptions of morality which would reject such an appeal. There is an attempt here both to articulate and critically probe a distinctive moral methodology (the method of reflective equilibrium) and to examine skeptical challenges to a foundationalism which would ground morality in fundamental rights claims. I attempt a partial testing of such a moral methodology by examining its ability to meet such skeptical challenges to the rational grounding of human rights, and I assess (and this is plainly a reciprocal process) the depth of such skeptical challenges by the ability of such challenges to survive such an application of a method of reflective equilibrium. If that method is applied with discrimination and understanding, is it sufficient to defuse skeptical challenges to the pervasive belief that either rationality or the very taking of the moral point of view requires the acceptance of the belief that the design of morally acceptable social institutions and practices must be such that they aim at achieving a state of affairs in which all human beings are to be afforded equal consideration? Can a method of reflective equilibrium establish that a good society must embody such a commitment to an equality of human rights?
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Henry David Aiken (1962). Reason and Conduct. New York, Knopf.
Stuart M. Brown Jr (1955). Inalienable Rights. Philosophical Review 64 (2):192-211.
William K. Frankena (1955). Natural and Inalienable Rights. Philosophical Review 64 (2):212-232.
Hans-Georg Gadamer & Théodore F. Geraets (eds.) (1979). Rationality to-Day =. University of Ottawa Press.
Stuart Hampshire (1977). Two Theories of Morality. Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Steven Sverdlik (1985). Counterexamples in Ethics. Metaphilosophy 16 (2‐3):130-145.
Similar books and articles
Edward Stein (1994). Rationality and Reflective Equilibrium. Synthese 99 (2):137-72.
Thomas Kelly & Sarah McGrath (2010). Is Reflective Equilibrium Enough? Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1):325-359.
Joakim Sandberg & Niklas Juth (2011). Ethics and Intuitions: A Reply to Singer. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 15 (3):209-226.
Carl Knight (2006). The Method of Reflective Equilibrium: Wide, Radical, Fallible, Plausible. Philosophical Papers 35 (2):205-229.
Matej Sušnik (2009). The Amoralist Objection and the Method of Moral Reasoning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):91-100.
Jared Bates (2005). The Old Problem of Induction and the New Reflective Equilibrium. Dialectica 59 (3):347–356.
Ben Eggleston (2010). Practical Equilibrium: A Way of Deciding What to Think About Morality. Mind 119 (475):549 - 584.
Elvio Baccarini (1992). Reflective Equilibrium and Methodology of Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (3):175 – 180.
Carson Strong (2010). Theoretical and Practical Problems with Wide Reflective Equilibrium in Bioethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31 (2):123-140.
K. Kappel (2006). The Meta-Justification of Reflective Equilibrium. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (2):131-147.
Added to index2009-01-30
Total downloads17 ( #97,706 of 1,101,562 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #81,941 of 1,101,562 )
How can I increase my downloads?